Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Sea Supply Routes

Mr. Loveridge: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will consult with his European colleagues with a view to interesting them further in improving the defence of the sea supply routes on which their countries and the United Kingdom depend, and in a joint programme of building more warships to keep these routes safe.

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Ian Gilmour): Regular discussions are already held with our European and NATO allies on these topics. We have constantly emphasised the importance of protecting Europe's sea supply routes and are doing all we can to further collaboration in shipbuilding as in other areas of mutual interest.

Mr. Loveridge: I am glad to hear my hon. Friend say that. However, will he remind our Western European colleagues that there are approximately 1,000 Western European ships at sea at any given time East of Suez, and that the great tankers could represent an easy target for international terrorists? Will he remind our colleagues that money spent now might prevent terrorism later?

Mr. Gilmour: As my hon. Friend knows, we have constantly emphasised the potential danger to Western trade routes which is posed by a number of threats. That concern lies behind our determination to ensure that we in NATO possess balanced forces capable of worldwide deployment in this connection.

Underwater Technology

Mr. Laurance Reed: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether the facilities at the British Underwater Test and Evaluation Centre will be made available for the testing of civil projects.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Antony Buck): No plans exist for this at present.

Mr. Reed: I welcome my hon. Friend to Question Time in his new capacity. I wish him well in the responsibilities which he is undertaking. No doubt he knows that there is a good deal of local opposition to the scheme. However, is he aware that this is the only part of the United Kingdom continental shelf with water depths of up to 1,000 feet and, therefore, is unique from the point of view of testing underwater equipment.
Does my hon. Friend agree that if some way could be found to allow civilian projects to be tested at the centre, there would be less opposition, because Scots people would be convinced that here was a way in which they could boost their chances of getting more orders from North Sea oil development?

Mr. Buck: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. Our Navy is not the biggest in the world, but it is the greatest and I am privileged to be the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy.
I have noted what my hon. Friend has said. Certainly the depths involved make this a unique site which is essential for its present purposes. I shall bear very much in mind the points which my hon. Friend made in the latter part of his Question.

Mr. Douglas: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the research facilities available within his Department on the subject of underwater technology.

Mr. Buck: Research work on underwater technology is carried out at a number of defence establishments. Those primarily concerned are the Admiralty Underwater Weapons Establishment Portland, the Admiralty Research Laboratory Teddington, the Naval Construction


Research Establishment Dunfermline and the Royal Naval Physiological Laboratory Alverstoke, near Portsmouth. I hope to familiarise myself with the work of these establishments as soon as I can.

Mr. Douglas: I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he tell us whether this research information was made available to the IME Group, which is looking into the capability of British industry to cater for the needs of North Sea oil exploration as, in my opinion, the valuable research material available would be of great use, especially when we have to search for and to produce oil in very deep water?

Mr. Buck: Whether this precise information was made available, I cannot say. What I have checked on is that it is definitive policy, with which I agree completely, to make widely available information on these technological achievements. I shall do my best to see that it is done.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: May I be the second to congratulate my hon. Friend on his new appointment? Does he understand that with our only potential enemy possessing 400 U-boats, which cannot be called a defensive force, there is no more important subject for my hon. Friend to bring himself up to date on than this one?

Mr. Buck: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend. That is why I said that I intended to familiarise myself with these establishments as soon as possible. I shall bear in mind the points made by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Departmental Land

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Minister of State for Defence how many acres of land in the United Kingdom are in the ownership of the Ministry of Defence and how this figure compares with one year and two years ago, respectively.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Peter Blaker): About 572,000 acres are owned by the Ministry of Defence in the United Kingdom. The corresponding figures for 1970 and 1971 are 558,000 and 539,000 acres respectively. Some 50,000 acres were transferred from the Ministry of

Aviation Supply following its amalgamation with the Ministry of Defence in May, and this more than accounts for the apparent increase between 1971 and 1972.

Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend knows that I will consider those figures with great interest. Does my hon. Friend recognise that 1 per cent. of the total land area of the United Kingdom is in the ownership of his Ministry and that there are desperate and competing demands for land in this country? Will he give an assurance that he will have a personal and continual review of service land which could be released by his Ministry for other needs?

Mr. Blaker: I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. I recognise his close interest in the matter. However, between the financial years 1961–62 and 1971–72, 191,000 acres were disposed of, and the general trend is now towards further reduction.

Mr. Judd: The progress made in that direction is recognised. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are urban communities in the vicinity of large defence establishments which are desperately short of land for housing and other social purposes? Will the hon. Gentleman look particularly at their needs and make whatever further progress is possible?

Mr. Blaker: The hon. Gentleman will know that Lord Nugent's committee is now reviewing defence land. We expect that the committee's report will appear either at the end of this year or early next year. It is our firm policy to limit our land holdings to the minimum necessary, bearing in mind, amongst other factors, the one which the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned.

Northern Ireland

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: asked the Minister of State for Defence what extra leave entitlement is given to Army personnel serving in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Blaker: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) on 8th August, 1972.—[Vol. 842, c. 378–9.]

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The Army in Ulster is doing a fantastic job of buying time for us politicians. Will my hon. Friend assure us that leave entitlements are really generous, and, in particular, that men whose families are left behind in BAOR have time while they are on tour in Ulster to get home and spend a reasonable period with their families before going back on duty?

Mr. Blaker: I agree that the Army is doing a fantastic job in Ulster. The priority which the Ministry is attaching to this question is shown by its efforts to improve leave arrangements by providing leave travel concessions—for example, air travel at reduced fares to Great Britain or BAOR for short leave during an emergency tour which soldiers enjoy if the operational situation allows.

Rev. Ian Paisley: In Northern Ireland the troops can come under attack in all areas. This was not so heretofore, and therefore they are under greater strain than ever before. Will the hon. Gentleman keep this in mind when considering this very important subject?

Mr. Blaker: I will certainly bear that point in mind.

Mr. Duffy: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the operations of the British Army in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the recent operations of the British Army in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The Army continues to assist the civil authorities in keeping the peace by combating terrorism, from whatever quarter, and protecting the lives and property of the community.

Mr. Duffy: The hon. Gentleman will recall the major gun battle in the Ardoyne last Sunday, coming as it did—as The Times pointed out on Monday—just two weeks after the Army had claimed that it had picked up every wanted man in the Ardoyne. This is not the first claim of this kind in the last few years which has subsequently been belied by events. Is this due to over-optimism on the part of the Army, which makes for seemingly extravagant claims? If it is, is it in the best interests

of the ordinary foot soldier and his morale? Or is it due to unquenchable resources of the IRA?

Mr. Gilmour: I wish that the hon. Gentleman did not always spend Question time criticising the Army. I do not believe that the Army said what the hon. Gentleman claims. But even if it had said it, it could still have been true because other wanted men could have got into the Ardoyne later.

Mr. Goodhart: As the IRA is now as much an anathema to the Government in Dublin as it is to the British Government and the people of Northern Ireland, is it not clear that co-operation between the security forces on both sides of the border is in the interests of the law-abiding majority of both communities?

Mr. Gilmour: We want as much cooperation as possible on the border. There has been a certain amount over the last month.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is every likelihood that the IRA will shortly commence a campaign of terror in the Irish Republic, just as it did years ago in Northern Ireland? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that there are enough troops in Northern Ireland to deal with it, in view of the fact that there is some evidence that the Eire Government cannot rely completely on the loyalty of some of their troops along the border?

Mr. Gilmour: I do not think that it is for me to comment either on the intentions of the IRA in the Republic or on doubts about the loyalty of Irish troops on that side of the border. It is a matter of speculation. I do not endorse what my hon. Friend has said.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Can the Minister give some assurance to the people in County Fermanagh and County Tyrone who are perturbed about the present situation along the border? Can he assure the House that there will be more helicopter patrols along the border, so that the Army can have intelligence about what is happening on the other side of the border, in order to prevent the setting up of rocket launchers directed from the south to the north?

Mr. Gilmour: I well understand the concern of those living in the border areas. As I have assured the hon. Gentleman before, the Army is doing whatever is practicable to patrol these areas and to gain what intelligence it can about forthcoming operations of the IRA.

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of State for Defence what steps are being taken to improve security on the border between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The security forces continue to control the border as effectively as is practicable. The requirement for further measures is kept constantly under review and, as my hon. Friend told the House on 16th November, a number of proposals are being studied.—[Vol. 846, c. 591.]

Mr. McMaster: Is my hon. Friend aware that despite the considerable successes of the Army in urban areas the situation on the border is far from satisfactory. Missile attacks in the last two days have shown how vulnerable the border is. Will my hon. Friend take steps to make use of local knowledge by forming some kind of Home Guard or Civil Defence from those who, because of physical fitness or age, are unable to join the Ulster Defence Regiment or the reserve police?

Mr. Gilmour: I agree that the situation on the border is not satisfactory. As my hon. Friend implies, most people who want to join a Home Guard organisation can join the UDR. There is difficulty about people who are not physically fit, but I will look into the possibility that he mentioned.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Would not the security forces be greatly assisted in their work in these areas if extradition arrangements with the Republic of Ireland were working properly? Is my hon. Friend aware that of 16 applications that have been made to the Republic of Ireland for extradition, not one has been successful? I welcome Mr. Lynch's new determination, but should not this matter be vigorously pursued?

Mr. Gilmour: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that extradition matters

are for my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.

Mr. Kilfedder: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he is satisfied that the present number of troops in Northern Ireland is sufficient; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Blaker: The force level in Northern Ireland is kept under review in the light of the situation. I am satisfied that the present deployment meets the present needs.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is it not extraordinary that the Government should have announced the intended withdrawal of 1,000 troops at a time when they were saying that they were determined to destroy the IRA terrorists in Northern Ireland, bearing in mind especially the frequent attacks on police stations and the need for troops to defend them?

Mr. Blaker: It is true that total troop levels have recently fallen. As the House will be aware, considerable reinforcements were deployed in Northern Ireland for Operation Motorman at the end of July. Since that task was accomplished there has been a planned reduction, of which recent moves are a part, but force levels are still significantly higher than they were in June.

Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that no level of British troops in Northern Ireland will be sufficient unless the people there come to their senses and agree to live peaceably together?

Mr. Blaker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in the emphasis that he places on the importance of a political solution. That is what the Government are devoted to.

Captain Orr: Can my hon. Friend say something about the level of troops in County Fermanagh, on that difficult border, about which there has been a great deal of anxiety? Is it true that the number of troops has been reduced in the last week or 10 days?

Mr. Blaker: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will understand if I tell him that it is not the practice, for reasons which I think he will appreciate, to give details of the deployment of troops in particular areas.

War Graves (Relatives' Visits)

Mr. Michael Cocks: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will explore the possibility of setting up a scheme to assist the close relatives of Service personnel buried in war graves overseas to visit the graves at least once in their lifetime.

Mr. Blaker: Our present scheme results from a comprehensive review made about five years ago. It provides for bringing home the body of a dead Serviceman, or for helping two of his family to attend the funeral overseas at public expense. If neither of these is practicable for Service reasons, two relatives may visit the grave at public expense provided they go within two years of death. The possibility of extending the scheme further back in time was carefully considered, but had to be ruled out because of the practical difficulties and the cost.

Mr. Cocks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reply, but he will realise that it is not really satisfactory. The Government have resources to do this not only through the Armed Forces but through BOAC. Surely it is a small thing for the country to do for the relatives of those who have made the supreme sacrifice for their country.

Mr. Blaker: I am not clear what point the hon. Gentleman has in mind. Perhaps he will discuss it with me privately or in correspondence, and I will consider it.

Mr. Wallace: As a member of the Commission, I find that there is a tremendous public interest in this matter. Are any voluntary organisations assisting in this work—perhaps the Royal British Legion, for example?

Mr. Blaker: The Royal British Legion gives assistance.

Meritorious Service Medal

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Minister of State for Defence what representation he has received from holders of the Meritorious Service Medal calling for a reduction in the waiting time before payment of the annuity is made.

Mr. Blaker: Since June 1970 we have had 13 inquiries on this subject, by or

on behalf of holders of the Meritorious Service Medal, some of which have implied that the waiting time should be reduced.

Mr. Cox: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply, but I am sure that these letters will have indicated to him the considerable time that many holders of the medal have to wait before the award is made to them. I know of cases where men have waited over 40 years and are still not in receipt of the annuity. Will the hon. Gentleman find out exactly how many holders of the award are not in receipt of the annuity and then fix a date when all holders of the medal will start to be paid the annuity? This is the only way to treat men who have loyally served the country for many years.

Mr. Blaker: I fully appreciate the loyal service which holders of the medal have given but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a review is under way and I must await its results.

Mr. Concannon: I, too, have written to the hon. Gentleman about this problem. Will he take it from me that the system is quite unsatisfactory? A person has to take part in a ballot, or join a queue of some kind and wait until someone else dies, before he gets to the head of the queue for the annuity. If we cannot do something better than this, would it not be better to stop issuing the medal altogether?

Mr. Blaker: It is not a question of a ballot but of a "queue", as the hon. Gentleman called it. No doubt all these matters will be taken into consideration by the review.

V/STOL Aircraft

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future employment of the vertical short take-off and landing aircraft in the Fleet and, in particular, in the new command through-deck cruisers.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend on 19th October.—[Vol. 843, c. 436–437.]

Mr. Wall: Is my hon. Friend aware that this question has been asked for five years and has received the same reply?


These aircraft—the Harrier and the prototype Kestrel—have been available for eight years. The United States has completed trials in the last two years. Why cannot the Ministry make up its mind?

Mr. Gilmour: I am certainly aware that my hon. Friend has asked me this question every month for the last 18 months. The United States Marines wanted the aircraft for a purpose different from that for which the Navy would require it. A project definition study has been started, and will take some months to complete. I cannot be more precise than that now.

Mr. Dalyell: The Question refers not to "a through-deck cruiser" but to "through-deck cruisers". Does this mean that we are to have more than one, at over £60 million apiece?

Mr. Gilmour: Our plan is that the first announcement of the ordering of a cruiser will come at the beginning of next year.

Mr. Dalyell: Answer the question.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will my hon. Friend explain to his new colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, and ask him to bring a sense of history to his appointment, which we welcome, and recall that the first duty of the Royal Navy throughout the centuries has been to protect our trade, and that it cannot be done other than by endemic ship-borne aircraft?

Mr. Gilmour: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy does not need urgings from me in that respect.

Mr. John Morris: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that questions have been asked from time to time on this issue? When will he be in a position to make an announcement in order to reassure his hon. Friends? Will he be able to do so in the next Defence White Paper? Will he at the same time give a clear indication of the number of cruisers he has in mind to build, and also the rate of ordering? Will he make the position abundantly clear?

Mr. Gilmour: We certainly wish to make matters clear as soon as possible. My noble Friend the Secretary of State hopes to be able to make an announce-

ment in the Defence Estimates, but I cannot give any guarantee.

Mr. Wall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

European Nuclear Force

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of State for Defence what plans he now has for a European nuclear force: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: None, Sir.

Mr. Allaun: That makes me wonder why the Secretary of State for Defence raised the matter at the Conservative Party Conference, which he presumably did with the agreement of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question, please.

Mr. Allaun: Does the Minister of State fully realise that any such plan would kill stone dead the growing détente between East and West in Europe?

Mr. Gilmour: My answer to the hon. Gentleman's non-question is that my noble Friend made that speech because he was looking forward well into the future. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that I do not think that it is true. As I said earlier, any such plans are well in the future.

Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how far the Secretary of State was looking into the future?

Mr. Gilmour: My noble Friend made it clear last week that the only discussions there have been with the French have been to agree that any such development is a very long-term matter indeed.

Mr. Hattersley: Could the hon. Gentleman re-interpret the Secretary of State's speech in the House of Lords a little further and more clearly? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is the Secretary of State's view that there should be a European nuclear force but that he does not believe that our NATO partners agree with it? Is that the position advocated by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Gilmour: No, it is not.

Mr. Hattersley: What is it then?

Beira Patrol

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make an official visit to the men and ships of the Beira patrol.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Judd: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that many right hon. and hon. Members would wish to express their gratitude to the men of the Beira patrol for the way in which they are carrying out their difficult assignment? Can the hon. Gentleman say what approaches have been made to the new Government of Malagasy with a view to securing bases for air support in order to make the patrol more effective, and what approaches have been made to other Commonwealth Governments and allies for possible assistance in the patrol, again to make it more effective?

Mr. Gilmour: I am always grateful when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite express their gratitude to the Royal Navy, though I am always surprised that they confine their remarks to the Beira patrol—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It is a fair point. A party point was made and it is fair to make a party answer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] There have been many occasions on which the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy has had to answer questions on this point. The same point was always made.
Dealing with the second matter raised by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd), we have no plans to contact the Government of Malagasy. We believe that the patrol is fully effective now.

Mr. Evelyn King: As it is well known that petrol is freely available in Rhodesia at a price lower than that in Great Britain, is it not a fact that the Beira patrol is no more than a floating advertisement of British impotence? Would not it be much better to bring the patrol back to Portsmouth, where the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) could inspect it and thereby get to know something about it?

Mr. Gilmour: Whether or not the patrol should continue is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition benches are already dissatisfied by the fact that we can never ask questions of the Secretary of State for Defence and that, if objective questions are to be answered in a party political way, the dissatisfaction will grow?

Mr. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman's dissatisfaction is a matter for him. It was a slightly flippant answer to a flippant question. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is a question which comes up frequently and that it is asked for a specific reason. I answered in a similar vein.

Sir G. de Freitas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Deaths Overseas (Notification)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will now review the procedure for informing relatives about, and making funeral arrangements for, soldiers killed either in action or on manoeuvres abroad.

Mr. Blaker: I see no need at present to review these procedures. On the whole, I believe that they are made with a care and consideration which is much appreciated by relatives.

Mr. Huckfield: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the procedure followed in the case of my late constituent, Signalman Johnson, of Keresley, near Coventry, whose parents were told in a perfunctory telegram that he had been killed in Germany? They were told to ring an Army telephone number. When they did, they were told that that office knew nothing about it. Their son's body was dumped in Coventry with about as much ceremony as one would expect to be given to a sack of potatoes. Two months later, his parents still know nothing about the exact circumstances in which he was


killed. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with this sort of procedure?

Mr. Blaker: The hon. Gentleman has rather overstated his case, I think. The solicitor acting for the father of Private Johnson has reported that the family appreciated the sympathy and personal kindness of those who had to deal with them on behalf of the Army.
The hon. Gentleman has referred to a telegram. That is the normal method by which families are informed in these very regrettable circumstances. The squadron commander wrote to Mr. Johnson immediately offering the assistance of the unit should he decide on a military funeral in Germany.
The point raised in the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is a different matter. I am personally inquiring into the circumstances and Mr. Johnson's desire to attend an inquiry. I hope to write to him in a short time.

Mr. Loveridge: Is my hon. Friend aware that the next-of-kin of those killed in civil accidents arising out of manoeuvres are denied rights that they would have had if the persons killed had been in the Civil Service? Will my hon. Friend seek with his colleagues, therefore, to amend Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947?

Mr. Blaker: If my hon. Friend will give me details, I shall look into the matter.

Mr. Concannon: Will the hon. Gentleman now look into the possibility of adopting the policy of bringing back to this country all those Service men and members of their families who are killed or who die while on overseas service? I cannot see why we should not do this, especially when one considers the expense that the American authorities go to in Vietnam to ensure that this is done.

Mr. Blaker: I shall look closely into this matter. My information is that a body can be sent to wherever the next of kin wishes. If I am wrong about that, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

Nimrod Aircraft

Mr. Winterton: asked the Minister of State for Defence what proposals he has to purchase further Nimrod aircraft

to fill the early warning rôle against low-flying bombers as part of defence strategy.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Lord Lambton): We have no proposals for the purchase of additional Nimrods at the present time. Shackleton aircraft specially converted for airborne early warning tasks over the sea entered service only this year. Their eventual replacement requires extensive study.

Mr. Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a dangerous gap in the defence system of this country, namely, our vulnerability to low flying aircraft, and that Nimrod can fulfil this rôle extremely well? The Royal Air Force has been pressing for some time for this gap to be filled. What action will be taken to fill this very serious defence gap?

Lord Lambton: I do not quite know to which gap my hon. Friend is referring.

Five-Power Defence Agreement (South-East Asia)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of State for Defence if, in view of the recent decisions of the Australian Government, he will seek to re-negotiate the Five-Power Defence Agreement in South-East Asia.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: No, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: As the incoming New Zealand Government, the Government of Malaysia and possibly a new Government in Australia want renegotiation, is it not time that we realised we should not commit ourselves, without considerable thought, to Lee Kuan Yew and the Government of Singapore?

Mr. Gilmour: I do not accept the premise on which the hon. Gentleman's question is based. In fact, the arrangements are voluntary. If there is a new Government in Australia—we do not know whether there will be—this will be one of the many subjects that we shall discuss with them.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the result of the Australian general election in two days, we may expect a wise and far-sighted policy on South-East Asia


from the Australian Government in the future, as in the past?

Mr. Gilmour: Yes, I accept that.

Mr. John Morris: What consideration has been given, from the defence point of view, to the change of Government in New Zealand, in that they have but one battalion in Singapore, and what contingency plans are there for a change of Government in Australia on Saturday, after 23 years? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Australian Labour Party is pledged to end conscription and to withdraw permanent ground forces from South-East Asia? Does not this call for an early renegotiation of the Five-Power Defence Agreement? Does he not find it odd that there are three outside Powers in South-East Asia—Australia, New Zealand and ourselves—while Singapore and Malaysia will have little to do with one another in the defence sphere?

Mr. Gilmour: As I said before, I do not accept the premise on which the question is based. The New Zealand Government came into power only a few days ago. The right hon. Gentleman will not, therefore, expect me to reveal our contingency plans. However, we obviously shall discuss these and other matters with the new Government in New Zealand and the new Government in Australia, if there is one.

Royal Air Force (Flight Safety)

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of State for Defence what steps he is taking to improve the standard of flying safety in the Royal Air Force.

Lord Lambton: The standard of flight safety in the Royal Air Force is high and compares favourably with that of other air forces. It is the responsibility of the Service at all levels to maintain and improve this standard, making full use of the continuous research and analysis which is conducted in this field.

Mr. Cronin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the increase in the number of accidents in the RAF has now reached an unsupportable degree? Apart from the risk to life and limb of the gallant young men who fly these planes, is it not

the case that accidents involving RAF aircraft now total about £1 million a week?

Lord Lambton: No Minister will ever be satisfied as long as there are accidents. However, considering the number of new planes which have come into service. I do not think that the number of accidents is surprisingingly high. They are regrettable, but we must remember that in the last few years we have had new types of planes coming into service.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that there could be more openness about the causes of RAF accidents? Are flight recorders carried in any combat aircraft?

Lord Lambton: That is another question.

Combat Aircraft (Procurement)

Mr. Warren: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will seek to arrange for discussions on the need to co-ordinate the combat aircraft procurement policies of the German, Italian and British air forces.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: There are already extensive arrangements both within NATO and with individual countries, including the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy, for discussions on co-ordination of combat aircraft requirements and procurement policies.

Mr. Warren: Were any consultations offered to my right hon. Friend recently when the West German Government decided to order a further substantial number of American Phantom aircraft with the consequential decision, well known to my hon. Friend's Department, of that Government's intention to reduce their order for the multi-rôle combat aircraft in which we have a substantial interest?

Mr. Gilmour: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Federal German Republic is at liberty to buy aircraft from America or anywhere else. Any reduction in the number of orders for the MRCA will be a matter for discussion during the current review on the aircraft. If there is any reduction or increase in orders there will be corresponding adjustments in the costs and work sharing.

Departmental Headquarters Work (Relocation)

Mr. Millan: asked the Minister of State for Defence what steps he has taken to re-locate headquarters work of his Department in the development areas.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Since December, 1970 about 150 posts, which at the time were classified as headquarters work, have been re-located in Carlisle and Liverpool.

Mr. Millan: I suggest that 150 out of more than 20,000 headquarters staff is not a very good record. In that context may I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that Scotland is interested not only in having facilities like firing ranges, which no other part of the country wants but, arising from the Hardman Report, in seeing a considerable relocation of headquarters staff in Scotland?

Mr. Gilmour: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but he will understand that there are great difficulties about dispersing headquarters staff too widely. As I told him a fortnight ago, I cannot anticipate the findings of the Hardman Committee.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that whilst we welcome the relocation of jobs in Scotland we do not welcome places like nuclear submarine bases? Will he do something to get rid of them?

Mr. Gilmour: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman does not welcome them but his feeling is not widely shared.

Nuclear Submarines (SALT Agreements)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Minister of State for Defence having regard to the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks agreement, if he will undertake not to modernise the British nuclear submarine fleet.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: As my right hon. Friend told the hon. Gentleman on 20th November, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks agreements are solely between the United States and the Soviet Governments, and no question of our giving such an undertaking therefore arises.—[Vol. 846, c. 264.]

Mr. Jenkins: Is not the hon. Gentleman mistaken? With the development

of Trident, which can operate from American bases, even nuclear fanatics will recognise that both Polaris and its bases will become redundant'? In those circumstances, would it not be a complete waste of public money, apart from anything else, to replace Polaris with Poseidon?

Mr. Gilmour: I am not a nuclear fanatic, and I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, the effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent is kept continually under review.

Mr. Frank Allaun: As Trident's range is about 6,000 miles, it does not need a base here. Therefore, why should we make this country—a highly crowded country—a sitting duck for a superseded but still suicidal weapon?

Mr. Gilmour: We shall continue to make our bases available to the Americans so long as they want them. As the hon. Gentleman surely knows, the purpose of the nuclear deterrent is to prevent war. It does not, therefore, increase the risk of war.

Mr. Hattersley: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman a question on which I pursued his predecessor but never had a very acceptable answer. Will he give an assurance that before any steps are taken radically to alter the nature or character of the Polaris fleet the House will be informed and allowed to express its views on them, rather than have a fait accompli simply reported to it as a matter of Government intention?

Mr. Gilmour: As no such decision has been made I cannot give any undertaking about what information, if any, will be given.

Army Officer Recruitment (Advertisements)

Mr. Golding: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will withdraw the words, "Talk to the crew on your father's yacht", in advertisements on how to beat the Army Officer Selection Board.

Mr. Blaker: No, Sir, but that particular advertisement is due to be replaced by the next in the series.

Mr. Golding: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that yachts have come into disrepute since June, 1970? Can he say


what percentage of officer recruits in the last year attended public schools? Can he further say what steps he is taking to create a more open type of recruitment to the officer class?

Mr. Blaker: The object of the current advertising campaign is to attract candidates from the widest possible sections of the community. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about the sources from which candidates come, he will be interested to know that in the last two years the percentage of candidates who have put themselves forward from schools other than Headmasters' Conference schools has been between two-thirds and three-quarters.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Reed, to ask Question No. 29.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have only one Question to the Minister of State for Defence, and that is No. 40. I wonder why those who have two Questions—

Mr. Speaker: I would rather have a point of order about a Question at the end of Question Time.

International Law of the Sea Conference

Mr. Laurance Reed: asked the Minister of State for Defence what part the Royal Navy is playing in preparation for the International Law of the Sea Conference.

Mr. Buck: The Ministry of Defence is playing a full part in preparations for the International Law of the Sea Conference to take account of Royal Navy and other defence interests, and to give appropriate technical assistance.

Mr. Reed: Will my hon. Friend bear especially in mind the strategic implications of any extension of territorial waters or rules relating to the control of narrow straits and inlets, and also the fact that if any conflict arises as a result of failure to reach legal agreement it is the Royal Navy that will have to cope with it?

Mr. Buck: I shall bear those matters in mind. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the fact that in the background material here there is a most useful memorandum about these matters composed by him. It is a very useful document.

Harrier Aircraft

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: asked the Minister of State for Defence how many Harrier aircraft have now been ordered for the United States Marine Corps and how many for the Royal Navy.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The United States Marine Corps has ordered 90 aircraft. There have been no orders for the Royal Navy.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Is not that a fantastic reply?

Mr. Gilmour: I do not think that I have to explain to my hon. and gallant Friend, of all people, the difference between the Royal Navy and the United States Marine Corps. The American Marines are using their Harriers largely in a ground support rôle, which is not a rôle for which the Navy would use its Harriers.

Mr. Judd: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in the interests of the morale of the Fleet Air Arm it is essential that as soon as possible there should be a clear-cut indication from the Government about their future policy for the Harrier with the Navy?

Mr. Gilmour: I appreciate that, but the hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties, and he heard what I said in reply to an earlier Question.

Mr. Marten: May I link the Question about Harrier Aircraft with Question No. 16, tabled by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) who criticised, or had comments to make, about the safety of Royal Air Force flying? May I make it quite clear that he was referring to operational aircraft, and not to Transport Command, which is based in my constituency and which has an excellent record of safety?

Mr. Gilmour: I am sure that that is true.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT MINISTERS

Mr. Meacher: asked the Prime Minister if he will dismiss the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): No, Sir. I do not propose to


appoint or dismiss any Ministers or to increase or reduce the number of Ministers in any Department or to alter the present allocation of functions to Ministers or Departments unless and until I make a statement to the contrary.

Mr. Meacher: Will the Prime Minister dismiss the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Does he not realise that, contrary to the Chancellor's policies, a far more important cause of inflation today than wage push is the increasing monopolistic pricing power of the major corporations? The hundred largest companies in Britain now hold no less than 70 per cent. of the total assets of all quoted companies. When are the Government going to deal with the real causes of inflation, rather than follow their own phantom prejudices?

The Prime Minister: The Government are not responsible for the structure of public companies in this country. On the question of dealing with inflation, the Chancellor having reduced taxes by £3,000 million he cannot do more to reduce inflation.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Has my right hon. Friend had a "Private Eye" view of recent editions of the Grocer? Has he noticed that for two weeks running up to last week no price rises were recorded in its lists, compared with an average of 150 in the previous weeks?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct, but I have not taken any notice of the Grocer before, and I shall not start now.

Mr. John Smith: asked the Prime Minister if he will dismiss the Paymaster-General.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier today in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).

Mr. Smith: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Paymaster-General is going round to the public-spirited men who serve as trustees of our galleries in an attempt to blackmail and frighten them into agreeing that if they have a free day at their galleries they will put up charges on other days? Is not that a contemptible way for a Government

Minister to behave? Does the Prime Minister know about that and, if he does, does he approve of it?

The Prime Minister: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's allegations, or his extravagant language. Parliament has laid down the law in this matter, and my right hon. and noble Friend is discussing, with certain of the galleries which wish to make changes, arrangements that are suitable to them. In a number of cases these have already been agreed.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Would my right hon. Friend concede that the arts are a highly controversial subject, and that a policy about which everyone agreed would probably be monumentally dull? Would he also agree that the Paymaster-General has many successes to his credit, notably the bringing of the arts to many more people in the regions?

The Prime Minister: I have no doubt about the controversial nature of the arts. As regards the regions, the grant to the Scottish Arts Council has increased from £950,000 in 1970–71 to £1,400,000 this year—an increase of £450,000. In England and Wales Arts Council grants to the regional arts associations have increased from £320,000 in 1970–71 to £800,000 in 1972–73—an increase of £480,000 in the time that we have been in office. I think that that demonstrates what is being done for the arts.

Mr. Strauss: Does the right hon. Gentleman really justify the action of the Paymaster-General in imposing entrance charges on children who want to visit our national treasures in galleries and museums solely for the sake of raising £150,000 a year for the Treasury?

The Prime Minister: We discussed this at great length at Question Time the week before last, and the right hon. Gentleman knows my views. They are also the views of the Government.

Mr. Money: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that, far from being a subject for censure, it is a proud achievement by our right hon. and noble Friend to have spent more money on housing the arts and more on the performing arts than any previous Government?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a much wider approach than existed previously. I have always


felt that in the last 20 years a great deal has been done for the art galleries and for music but that the country has not met its obligations towards the museums. My right hon. Friend is now concentrating on the question of enabling museums to have better buildings and better resources for display.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND (VISIT)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his official visit to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement following his recent official visit to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Redmond: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent official visit to Northern Ireland.

Dr. Vaughan: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent official visit to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Duffy: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent official visit to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his official visit to Northern Ireland.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Gentlemen to the answer which I gave in reply to a similar Question on 21st November from my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder).—[Vol. 846, c. 379–80.]

Mr. Douglas: Bearing in mind the developments since then, will the right hon. Gentleman apprise himself of the numbers of sectarian murders in Northern Ireland and the steps that the security forces, with the police, are taking to bring to book the people who perpetrate these crimes? Secondly, has he apprised himself of the nature of the sophisticated weapons that are now being used in Northern Ireland, and particularly the sources of the funds

by which these weapons are purchased? What steps does he intend to take with the Governments of the countries who are assisting in the supply of these funds so as to prevent it?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; I discussed both these matters and apprised myself of the situation. In particular, on the second one, of course, we have known that there was always the risk of weapons of this kind being used. As the House was told yesterday, we have captured one of them. A large number of the markings have been erased and matters are now being studied to see whether it is possible to pin down precisely the origin of this weapon. The House has also been told many times of what we have done internationally to try to intercept any supplies of arms which may have been bought. The Amsterdam case was the most notable of these. As for sources of money, it is always difficult to pin down a source of money which is going to the IRA in the Republic itself; obviously, we have great difficulty in doing that.

Mr. Adley: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that in the light of recent events, including the Stephenson affair and the Russian missiles, there is the greatest possible need for the closest integrated action between the British and Irish Governments to combat what is clearly the common enemy of both?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I would agree with that. Certainly, my predecessor, when Prime Minister, and I myself, have always held the view, which we have publicly and privately expressed, that there was a danger not only to Northern Ireland but also to the Republic itself from the activities of those who were using violence.

Mr. Redmond: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that in view of the measures being taken by Mr. Lynch, which are much stronger than they have been in the past, there is now a greater opportunity for co-operation and for co-ordination of the security forces of both the Republic and the United Kingdom, to the mutual benefit of both? Are not both countries now shown to be under attack not from a religious or political point of view but from a purely ideological point of view?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with the last part of that question. Co-operation has always been forthcoming from the United Kingdom Government and from this side of the border.

Mr. Duffy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his first major speech after arriving in Northern Ireland was both courageous and welcome? But does it not now call for action on the ground? Is he satisfied with the action taken this week by Mr. Jack Lynch? Does he not think that Mr. Lynch may be able to hold to that course of action only if the Prime Minister undertakes corresponding moves north of the border against the UDF and those who think and act like them?

The Prime Minister: The situation in Northern Ireland is that the security forces, including the police, take action wherever crimes are found. I myself have explained this to Mr. Lynch and have given him the figures of the number of cases brought involving both Catholics and Protestants. At the moment, there are at least three of the present or former members of the UDA Council themselves under charges, and many members of the UDA as well. This is a convincing answer to those who say that the forces only operate—[An HON. MEMBER: "As many as three?"] Three of the top council itself and many members of the UDA. This is a convincing argument that the security forces are dealing impartially with anyone found committing crimes.

Dr. Vaughan: I welcome the much firmer line being taken in the south as well as the north. Is this not in part due to the success of our security forces, and in part to the very firm line which my right hon. Friend took on his recent visit to Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that I wish to comment on the events in the Republic or the action taken by the Prime Minister of Eire. These are internal matters of the Republic, and, of course, the Prime Minister of Eire takes responsibility for them.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Did the right hon. Gentleman learn of the new proposal of the provisional IRA for a truce while he was in Northern Ireland or since, and what is his view of it?

The Prime Minister: I heard nothing of this while I was in Northern Ireland. What has happened is that various people have come to us who are not themselves members of either branch of the IRA, saying that they had information that the Provisionals wanted a truce. Obviously, the people concerned have felt it their responsibility to pass it on to officials whom they contacted. That is the way in which any information has come to us.

Mr. McMaster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the IRA have killed, with bomb, bullet or rocket, over 650 people, including 100 members of Her Majesty's Forces, in the past three years? When will he correct the scandal whereby members of the IRA can have functions in England and walk about freely collecting money to buy these rockets from Russia?

The Prime Minister: I am well aware of the difficulties which my hon. Friend quotes. That is why this Government, like our predecessors, have been so determined to try to deal with violence. As for action in this country, if it is against the law, action will be taken about it, but in this part of the United Kingdom, we have no law which outlaws particular political parties or groups of people. Neither do we have any evidence that money collected here is going to Iron Curtain countries for the purposes that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Just so that the wrong figures do not get on the record, would the Prime Minister not confirm that the figures are even worse than his hon. hon. Friend said, in that, from Government sources yesterday, we heard with deep regret of the death of the 100th regular Serviceman within this year, not within the last three years, which makes it worse? On the second point made by the right hon. Gentleman, about political parties, could he confirm that political uniforms as well as unauthorised military uniforms are illegal in Northern Ireland, yet they are being flaunted every day?

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the first part of what he said. In his second question, he touched on a very important point. It always comes back to the definition accepted by the courts of what is an illegal uniform. The right hon. Gentleman himself recognised some of the difficulties which arise in that connection.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT NIXON

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he will invite President Nixon to pay an official visit to Great Britain.

The Prime Minister: We are always glad to welcome the President of the United States to this country, but there are no plans at present for him to pay an official visit.

Mr. Marten: In that case, when the Prime Minister next discusses anything with the President of the United States, could he raise the question of the American initiative for an industrial free trade area? As Britain, after 1st January, will lose an independent voice within GATT, where this will be discussed, what view will the British Government take within the Common Market Council of this American initiative before we lose our independent voice?

The Prime Minister: If, when he talks of an industrial free trade area, my hon. Friend is referring to the next round of tariff negotiations—whether they be external tariffs or internal barriers against trade—I would only say that we have already done a great deal. We did it at the Summit. It was on our initiative that the Community accepted that it would have its own negotiating position ready by 1st July. Moreover we shall do our utmost to bring the negotiations to an end by December, 1975.
The Community set out in its communiqué the specific ways in which it wants to help these negotiations succeed, both in the field of the external tariffs and on internal barriers to trade. It also set out, of course, its views about the general preferences scheme for the developing world. Thus, the Community as a whole has already taken an initiative in this, which is more precise, more defined and, I think, more far-reaching than that of the United States.

Mr. John Mendelson: In his normal communications with the President of the United States, will the Prime Minister point out that there was widespread relief when the proposed agreement to bring the war in Vietnam to an end was so near, and that there is now bitter disappointment all over the world that the military régime in Saigon is once again

being allowed to sabotage the signing of a peace agreement? Will the Prime Minister urge the President of the United States to sign this agreement forthwith, to stop the bombing of Vietnam, and to bring the war to an end?

The Prime Minister: President Nixon needs no urging to bring about peace in Vietnam. He has surely been working as hard as any President could to achieve that. I know full well that his efforts are just as determined now as they have ever been.

Sir F. Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House which Vietnam it is that has been attacking the other, and precisely what sort of régime it is that exists in North Vietnam at present?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has emphasised what the House well knows is the source of the aggression, and the nature of the régime it is. But my hon. Friend would also wish to concentrate, like the rest of the House, on the future of this war-scarred country and the genuine endeavours which are being made by President Nixon at this moment to bring the war to a speedy end. I am sure that we would all like to give him support ill doing that.

Sir F. Bennett: Yes, but not any fellow-traveller nonsense.

Mr. J. T. Price: Returning to the question of our relationship with North America, can the Prime Minister give any information about the steps reported as being taken to organise a conference in the spring in Ankara among the members of the enlarged Community to establish a common stance towards North America on behalf of the European partners in the EEC, of which we are a new one? Is it true that a conference is being organised by the European Movement for this purpose? If so, can the Prime Minister give any information as to its true purpose and why it should be held in Ankara—if that is the locus?

The Prime Minister: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any specific information about that. But the European Movement is not the responsibility of either the Community or the British Government. The relations of the Community with the United States are very well


known and were repeated in the communiqué after the summit; that is, that we want a relationship of close friendship with them as well as an alliance with those countries which are members of NATO.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Speaker: Mr. McNair-Wilson.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me on this point of order. It relates to my Question No. 40 to the Minister of State for Defence. It is the only Question I put down to him. I tabled it this week, and I am wondering why it came after the second Question of many other hon. Members, as I thought that the rule was that first Questions came first.

Mr. Speaker: I think that probably the answer relates to the time at which the hon. Member put down his Question, but I will look into the matter.

Mr. Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Owing to the highly unsatisfactory and highly discourteous reply to my Question No. 14 by my hon. Friend, I give notice—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot do that now.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Yes, Sir.
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 4TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill.
Motion on the Mines and Quarries (Valuation) (Amendment) Order.
Motion relating to the Awards (First Degree, etc. Courses) (Amendment) Regulations.
TUESDAY, 5TH DECEMBER—Supply (2nd allotted day): debate on an Opposition Motion relating to postponement of the introduction of VAT.
Motion on the Development of Tourist Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order.
WEDNESDAY, 6TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
THURSDAY, 7TH DECEMBER—Remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Supply (3rd allotted day): debate on a Motion to take note of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts, Session 1971–72, and the related Treasury Minute (Command No. 5126).
Motion on the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) Order.
FRIDAY, 8TH DECEMBER—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 11TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Concorde Aircraft Bill.

Mr. Wilson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, first, when we may now expect the White Paper on steel? Is he aware that a debate on steel is long overdue? We have deferred pressing for it, even on a Supply Day, because of the expected arrival of the White Paper before Christmas. Will he now categorically confirm that we shall have the White Paper before Christmas? If not, the House may be in the position of having to insist on a debate before getting the White Paper.
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that a statement will be made next week about what the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary did or did not say in Spain about the Common Market? There is great anxiety about this matter. Could we be told exactly what he said? If he said what he is reported to have said, will the Leader of the House arrange for his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to repudiate it?
Thirdly, are we to expect next week the long-awaited White Paper on higher education? As the right hon. Gentleman will know, universities have had to start the new quinquennium by recruiting staffs and arranging for student courses without any idea of what finance will be available.


Are we to be told next week about the finance that will be available?
Fourthly, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement on what is so far only a Press report, which may be wrong, about an alleged raid on a newspaper office for the purpose of discovering whether there was a Government document there, about which concern has been expressed? Will he let the House know whether this is, perhaps, a new development in the matter of the tracing of leaks by the police?

Mr. Prior: On the right hon. Gentleman's last question, I shall have the matter investigated. I do not know anything of this nature at present.
I promised that a statement would be made on the steel industry before Christmas.

Mr. Varley: A definitive statement?

Mr. Prior: It will be a definitive statement, yes. I keep to that promise that I have made.
On the question of the White Paper on education, I confirm that such a White Paper will be published next week.
On the question of my right hon. Friend's visit to Spain, there will be ample opportunity for this to be discussed in the foreign affairs debate, which I hope very much will take place the week after next.

Mr. Wilson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courteous answers to my questions. On the question of the Steel White Paper, can he say whether we can expect it to be definitive in the sense of a much more pointed figure for the expansion of the industry, and whether it will deal with the question of where expansion and closures are to take place? Is that intended?

Mr. Prior: I should like to consider those points a little more carefully and, perhaps, contact the right hon. Gentleman. For the moment, I have not mentioned a White Paper. At the moment I have gone no further than to say that there will be a definitive statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the period between now and Christmas.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: May I congratulate the Opposition on joining in my excellent campaign for the postponement of value added tax? May I also assure my right hon. Friend that I give him a wholehearted zero rating?

Mr. Prior: May I tell my right hon. Friend that it will also give the Government a chance to put right some of the inaccuracies of what he has been saying.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed Early Day Motion No. 27, which calls for nuclear bases to be destroyed? Will he give time for a debate upon this subject because, as has become apparent during Question Time today, there is considerable interest in the Government's attitude towards nuclear bases? Is it not high time that we debated the subject?

[That this House, having regard to the following passage in the 1964 Labour Party General Election manifesto:'… Nor is it true that all this costly defence expenditure will produce an "independent deterrent". It will not be independent and it will not be British and it will not deter … we are not prepared any longer to waste the country's resources on endless duplication of strategic nuclear weapons ', and to the 1972 Conference resolution, which reads as follows: 'This Conference is convinced of the futility of a nuclear war which would be suicidal for the human race and in view of the present world unrest feels the time is ripe for positive action by the British Government. The presence of American nuclear bases prevents us from taking the kind of political stance which would encourage world nuclear disarmament. There is no doubt this country presents a sitting target. This Conference is opposed to any British defence policy which is based on the use or threatened use of nuclear weapons either by this country or its allies and demands the removal of all nuclear bases in this country', believes that these policies should now be implemented.]

Mr. Prior: I do not think that this would be out of order in the foreign affairs debate which I hope will take place the week after next.

Mr. Farr: Does my right hon. Friend expect that a report will be published next week on the riot at Gartree; and,


if so, will he make available at some time in the near future parliamentary time to discuss it?

Mr. Prior: I cannot give my hon. Friend an answer to that question at the moment, but I will consult my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. It is most unlikely that we can find time before Christmas for a debate on this important matter in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Leader of the House give us any indication as to where the Committee stage of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill is to be taken? It will be something of a scandal if, simply because the Conservative Party has not enough Scottish Members, Scottish Members are deprived of the opportunity of taking part in the Committee stage of this important Bill which affects every Scottish constituency.

Mr. Prior: In that respect this Bill is no different from the Local Government Act for England and Wales. It is reasonable that a Bill of this nature should be considered by a Standing Committee. Then it will come back to the Floor of the House on Report when other hon. Members on both sides will have a chance of putting their points.

Dame Irene Ward: When are we to have the Coal Industry Bill? When are we to be told who are to pay—and how—the deficits of the nationalised industries? I could do a great deal better with the money that would be available. There are a large number of things I want to spend it on.

Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend may think that she would do better. Over the years she has called upon the nationalised industries to keep down their prices—

Dame Irene Ward: They never have.

Mr. Prior: —and Government aid to the nationalised industries has enabled that to happen. I assure my hon. Friend that the Coal Industry Bill is coming forward very soon now.

Mr. Hannan: Returning to the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), surely the Leader of the House understands the difference between England and Wales and Scotland, in that there is a majority of Opposition Members from

Scotland and that they will be deprived of the opportunity of serving on the Standing Committee.
Did the Leader of the House give further consideration to the request made last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) that the rule should be suspended on Monday night to afford more time for the debate on Second Reading?

Mr. Prior: I gave further consideration to the question of suspending the rule. I think that the Opposition wished in any case to take a prayer that evening, so this suggestion was not pursued. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I still think that the right place for discussion of a Bill is in a Standing Committee, and that is the ordinary practice of the House.

Captain Orr: My right hon. Friend will recollect that it was intended to take the Detention of Terrorists Order last week. My right hon. Friend has not announced it as part of next week's business. Is there any particular reason for the delay? May we expect it soon?

Mr. Prior: There is no particular reason for the delay. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows only too well, we have had a lot of Irish business on the Floor of the House in the last two weeks and I wish to pursue some other topics which hon. Members in all parts of the House want to get on with.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Will the Leader of the House find time soon for a debate on the Franks Committee Report on the Official Secrets Act? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the longer this report remains pigeon-holed and un-debated the longer this totally discredited Act remains the law of the land?

Mr. Prior: This is obviously a very important subject. I will consider what the hon. Gentleman said and see when we can find time. In the next few weeks we have a very busy programme.

Sir Bernard Braine: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Early Day Motion No. 1 which calls for the setting-up of a Select Committee to scrutinise Britain's overseas aid performance?
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to reconsider its view as set


out in its Green Paper on Select Committees of the House of Commons published in October 1970, and to recommend to the House that a Select Committee on Overseas Development be established, whose functions would include the review and appraisal of British performance in relation to the International Development Strategy for the Second United Nations Development Decade.]
This motion has already attracted almost 200 signatures and I can promise my right hon. Friend that it will attract more. Will he give the House an indication whether he will be able to give an inkling of the Government's intentions on this before we rise for the Christmas Recess?

Mr. Prior: I will certainly consider what my right hon. Friend said. We have not, perhaps, been getting on as fast with setting up Select Committees as one would have liked. Therefore, it is difficult at this stage to see whether we should have sufficient hon. Members in all parts of the House to serve on these Committees. In the next few weeks we must obviously reach decisions on these important matters.

Mr. McBride: Reverting to the matter of the steel industry raised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, is the Leader of the House aware that as Chairman of the Welsh Parliamentary Group I led a deputation to the Secretary of State for Wales this week, on which occasion the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was not sure whether a statement would be issued about the steel industry before Christmas? Can the right hon. Gentleman now say that a definitive statement of policy about the steel industry will certainly be made before Christmas to allay the anxieties of the steelworkers of Wales and that this statement will in no way be construed as a holding operation?

Mr. Prior: This is a matter of very great importance, not least to hon. Members from Wales. A fortnight ago I said that the Government would be making a full statement before the Christmas Recess. I have no grounds for detracting from that statement.

Mr. Tugendhat: As we were kept up half the night on Irish business last week,

and as we are to devote a whole day to Scottish business next week, may I remind my right hon. Friend of his predecessor's promise that we would at some time discuss the problems of London? Over 7 million people live in London. They get very little time in the House compared with other parts of the Kingdom.

Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend exemplifies only too well the difficulties which face a Leader of the House.

Mr. Albu: In view of the vast sums of public money which are now being spent unplanned and unvoted, will the Leader of the House say when the White Paper on Public Expenditure is to be published and particularly whether it will give an indication of the Government's priorities in public expenditure especially in regard to higher education and expenditure on aircraft such as Concorde?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman can expect the White Paper on Public Expenditure shortly now. It is not my view that large sums of money are being spent unvoted. That is not a correct allegation.

Sir F. Bennett: The Leader of the Opposition's first question about the Foreign Minister's visit to Madrid received the answer that there will be ample opportunity to clarify these matters in the foreign affairs debate. My right hon. Friend does not need to be reminded that not every hon. Member gets called in a debate. May I ask whether on that occasion my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will also take the opportunity to deal with what I am sure are misleading and inaccurate reports which have appeared in the Spanish Press about undertakings he is alleged to have given over the question of Gibraltar?

Mr. Prior: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will be able to deal with that matter fully and, having heard what my hon. Friend has said, will take the opportunity of doing so.

Sir G. de Freitas: On the question of the Franks Committee Report and other reports, when will the Leader of the House if necessary reduce some of the legislation and allow us time to debate not only outstanding Royal Commission


reports but the 30 or so Select Committee reports which have never been discussed?

Mr. Prior: I am doing my best to find more time for this purpose. I believe it is the wish of the House that there should be more general debates. I certainly could not promise that we would be able to debate all these reports.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Leader of the House aware that his predecessor in March of this year made a promise to Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland that he would set up machinery so that instead of dealing with Orders in Council that cannot be amended Members from Northern Ireland could put forward amendments and deal with a parliamentary committee? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that pledge has not been honoured and that at the moment, although time has been given for discussion of Northern Ireland matters, most matters are discussed on Orders in Council and there is no room under this system to make amendments to the legislation?

Mr. Prior: I am aware of the views that have been expressed from time to time on this subject. Rather than send certain matters to some form of Irish Committee upstairs or in another part of the building, we have tried to give more time on the Floor of the House for these debates. I believe that, generally speaking, that has perhaps met the wishes of the House in a rather better way than the suggestion that was put forward earlier. If the House as a whole has views on how better we can arrange business concerning Northern Ireland, I am prepared to consider them.

Mr. Leonard: As it is already several weeks since hon. Members had the opportunity of hearing an explanation by the architects of the merits of the new parliamentary building, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give us an early opportunity to debate the matter so that a decision may be reached before our memories fade?

Mr. Prior: To be correct, it is about three weeks since we had the architects' report and demonstration. This is obviously a very important matter. I should like to have a debate as soon as possible and I agree that we should come to a

decision, but I do not think it can be before Christmas.

Mr. Marten: May we have a debate fairly soon on the draft regulations being put out by the Community about driving licences? This matter is still in the draft stage and we could discuss it quite usefully provided we were given the English translation of the draft which is being circulated.

Mr. Prior: These are matters that we would like to find time to debate if the time were available, but I do not believe there will be an early opportunity for that.

Mr. C. Pannell: If we are not to have an early debate on the parliamentary building, will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon his right hon. Friends, particularly the Minister for Housing and Construction, that they should not let out piecemeal information of what is to be done about Parliament and Parliament Square, such as the retention of Scotland Yard and Richmond Terrace? These things must be considered as a whole, and they raise a great controversy. The Minister should wait to make a proper statement to the House about the redevelopment of Whitehall as a whole in relation to the parliamentary building.

Mr. Prior: It is obviously very hard to win on these things. There has been a great public demand for decisions to be reached on Scotland Yard and Richmond Terrace, and on the whole I believe that the House and the people outside, particularly Londoners, welcomed the decision that was made. I take the right hon. Member's point and I believe that we would like to get on with the matter as soon as we can find time for a comprehensive debate.

Mr. Redmond: May I raise the issue of the report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Questions? Is it not obvious, Mr. Speaker, from the number of points of order coming to you during Questions, particularly Prime Minister's Questions, that the House should have an early opportunity to debate the report and to make up its mind?

Mr. Prior: I want to deal with this problem before Christmas and I hope to make an announcement during the statement on next week's business, and certainly not later than the week after that.


I believe that the House would want to get this issue out of the way before Christmas.

Mr. Concannon: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Coal Mines Bill would be out very soon. Did he mean that the Second Reading would be taken before Christmas, because if not, and if it is left over until after the recess, the problem will arise that the Committee stages and the other stages here and in the other place will have to be completed before 31st March? If that is the right hon. Gentleman's intention, will he let us know very quickly so that some of us can make arrangements to come back early from the Christmas Recess to start the Committee stage?

Mr. Prior: By "very soon" I meant that I hoped that the Bill would be published next week, but if not next week certainly the week after that. Whether we could then find time to take the Second Reading before Christmas would depend upon the speed of parliamentary business, but if we could, we would like to do so. I have noted the hon. Member's point.

Mr. Urwin: Will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon the Secretary of State for Employment the importance and urgency of making at an early date, and certainly before Christmas, an anxiously awaited statement on the Loddon Viaduct disaster last month? Will the right hon. Gentleman allow time for a debate on the whole question of bridge design and safety in this part of the construction industry?

Mr. Prior: I shall report both those important matters to my right hon. Friend. I reported the concern about the bridge problem to him last week and I shall consider whether any statement needs to be made.

Mr. Lawson: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to set up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs next week? If he does not intend to do so, will he explain why there is a delay and what the difficulties are?

Mr. Prior: It is not my intention to set up this Select Committee next week and I am still considering when and whether it should be set up.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL (DEBATE)

Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make about business for next week.
Perhaps it will help if I inform the House that for the debate on Wednesday, 6th December on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill hon. Members may hand in to my office by 9.30 on the morning of Tuesday, 5th December their names and the topics they wish to raise. The ballot will be carried out as on the last occasion. An hon. Member may hand in only his own name and one topic.
This Consolidated Fund Bill contains the Civil Vote on Account, so that hon. Members may raise any questions of policy or administration arising out of the Civil Estimates. The Bill also makes provision to cover Civil Supplementary Estimates set out in House of Commons Paper No. 12. There is no opportunity for raising defence topics in the Bill. I shall put out the result of the ballot later on Tuesday, 5th December.

ICELANDIC FISHERIES

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.
My noble Friend, the Minister of State, met Icelandic Ministers in Reykjavik on 27th and 28th November in a further attempt to reach an interim settlement on the fisheries dispute. I am very sorry to have to inform the House that our efforts were unsuccessful.
Since our earlier discussions in July the International Court of Justice has given an interim order under which Iceland is not to enforce her regulations against British vessels outside the 12-mile limit and we should reduce our catch to a maximum of 170,000 tons a year, and our policy is based on this order. However, in order to reach an interim agreement we did not insist on catching 170,000 tons and we were prepared to consider any reasonable method of limitation.
The proposal which, with the support of the British fishing industry, my noble Friend put to the Icelandic Government was based on a report made by British and Icelandic officials in October. This suggested a negotiating bracket between 17 per cent. and 25 per cent. below the British catch of 1971. We suggested that one-third of the waters round Iceland should be closed to British vessels at any one time. We also accepted Icelandic conservation areas and recognised that there might be a need for special arrangements for areas containing fixed gear. Our industry was also prepared to give an assurance on the future composition or tonnage of the fishing fleet. We offered to negotiate on the midpoint of the bracket proposed by officials—namely a catch of 163,000 tons—about 21 per cent. below the 1971 figure.
The Icelandic Government proposed that half the area should be closed at any one time. They also wanted further extensive areas to be reserved for the smaller Icelandic vessels and pressed for the exclusion of all our freezers, as well as trawlers over 180 ft. in length or 750–800 tons in size. This would have excluded our most modern vessels and constituted a damaging precedent. We estimated that the total effect of these restrictions would be to cut our catch by at least 60–70 per cent.
In an attempt to bridge the gap, we suggested a different approach in the form of a 10 per cent. reduction in the actual fishing effort—the number of days fishing—by British vessels in the disputed waters. We estimated that this would have resulted in a 25 per cent. reduction in the catch, giving us perhaps 158,000 tons, compared with 208,000 tons in 1971. However the Icelandic Government was not prepared at this stage to accept this suggestion as a basis for further negotiation and suggested no alternative.
My noble Friend offered to extend her stay but the Icelandic Government did not consider we could take matters further at this stage. I hope, however, that when they have considered our latest proposals further they will recognise that they meet their twin requirements of conservation and coastal state preference. This method would still preserve the livelihood of our own fishermen. For our part we are

ready to resume negotiations at any time. Meanwhile we will continue the proceedings before the International Court.
We continued to keep in touch with the Federal German Government throughout these negotiations.

Mr. Crosland: The right hon. Gentleman's statement is very sad for my constituency and all the other fishing ports. It is clear from it, and from what we knew already, that the Icelandic proposals were preposterous, and not meant to be taken seriously, and that it was the Icelandic Government, and they alone, who were responsible for breaking off the talks.
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman four questions. First, did the Minister of State have the slightest indication when she returned that the Icelandic Government had any serious intention of continuing the negotiations during the winter?
Secondly, as British trawlermen are fishing in the grounds with the full backing of international law and of the International Court of Justice, will the Government strengthen as necessary the naval presence in the area, particularly to avoid incidents of harassment? As I have told the House more than once, one of these days many lives will be lost if such harassment goes on.
Thirdly, will the Government also make it clear to the Icelandic Government that if British trawlermen's lives are lost due to the closure of Iceland ports and fjords to British trawlers, the responsibility will be that of the Icelandic Government, and theirs alone?
Fourthly, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us a little more—he just referred to it in his last sentence—of what is meant by the newspaper reports this morning about the actions of the West German Government?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: My noble Friend the Minister of State deliberately kept open the possibility of more negotiations, because everyone realises how serious would be the consequences of a cod war on the industry. I shall have the opportunity in the NATO Council next week to see the Foreign Minister of Iceland, and I shall take advantage of it. But I must say that the Minister of State


returned with very little hope that the discussions could be resumed in a meaningful way.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about a naval presence. Yes, naval ships will be on station as required.
The responsibility for any loss of life or damage is that of the Icelandic Government.
As to the Federal German Government's actions, we have kept in touch with the Federal German Government all the time on the negotiations. I should like a little more notice before answering the right hon. Gentleman's question about the Federal German attitude as reported in the newspapers.

Mr. Wall: I very much regret the breakdown in the talks. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that each time the two Governments have met Britain has made concessions, and will he make it clear now that we have no more to give, that we have gone as far as we can? Will he also say quite clearly that if there is any more harassment of British trawlers on the high seas the Royal Navy will move in to protect them, and will he co-ordinate this protection with the West Germans?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not see how we could make any more concessions. But my hon. Friend will understand—certainly the industry does; we are in touch with it every day—how important it is that we should reach a settlement if at all possible, because the alternative of a cod war is terrible.
I have made it plain to the Icelandic Government that the Royal Navy must protect our fishermen if they are interfered with. That is quite clear, and I hope that it will be understood by the Icelandic Government.

Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it would strengthen the hands of those of us who have to argue our case, which seems to be good, with the Icelandic Government if he could state the reason in equity why we can apparently claim the oil under the sea far beyond the existing limits, but they cannot claim the fish? There must be some good reason, but at present I do not see what it is.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Nor do I. As to the relationship between fish in the sea and oil under it, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) represents the views of many hon. Members, not least myself? Will he assure the House that all possible efforts will be made to bring about a solution of the problem with Iceland, because otherwise it will have vast implications not only for the deep-water fleet but for all other sections of the British fishing industry?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. I accept that.
In answer to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), I will go a little further now. The difference is in the international law as applied to the law of the sea and to the law of minerals under the sea.

Mr. James Johnson: Are not the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and all those of us who are Members for fishing ports faced with a savage dilemma? If there is any possibility of keeping the door open, it would not be sensible to send in the fleet between the 50-mile and 20-mile limit. But if Mr. Josefsson, the Fisheries Minister, and his three Communist colleagues in a Cabinet of seven make any chance of future talks nugatory, he must tell the House and all those Members representing fishing ports quite clearly that he will not hesitate to send in our vessels to support our constituents, whether skippers or deck hands, who may get into difficulties.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We have a legal right to fish up to 12 miles. I must not go into the internal politics of Iceland. That would be improper. But where we have a right to fish, we must protect our fishermen if there is any interference.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind that it is disturbing to note the new form of negotiation? Our nation could stand firm on an international court ruling. We were safe, and knew where we were. Now we enter into negotiations and give concessions


which are the new starting point for other talks. What happened to the procedures that used to exist, under which we did not go into negotiations until behind the scenes we have a clear idea that the other people were prepared to negotiate, instead of weakening the stand and position from which we have to operate?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: My hon. Friend is not right, because we have had the interim judgment of the court, which restrains the Icelandic Government from interfering with the rights of British fishermen between the 12-mile limit and the 50-mile limit. It was also said that we should contain our catch within the limits of 170,000 tons. That we have done. We have kept scrupulously to the interim judgment. The final judgment will come in January.

Mr. Peart: Will the right hon. Gentleman resist the blandishments of the former Leader of the Liberal Party, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)? There is a major distinction between oil and fish. As the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary rightly said, we have an international agreement. It is not Britain who has broken it. More than that, there is to be a conference on the law of the sea. I believe that the Government will have the support of the Opposition in a desire to achieve a peaceful solution, but we must protect our seamen.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. We are trying to secure an interim arrangement pending the decision of the law of the sea conference in 1973. Between friendly nations and allies, this should not be very difficult on a modified basis of catch. We are trying to co-operate in this way.

Dame Irene Ward: I support my right hon. Friend in all the efforts being made. Is he aware of the very bad position that will result for the port of Tyne? Already the industry there has fallen considerably. Will my right hon. Friend get in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to find out what will be the effect on the ports and the employment of those who have been engaged in the fishing industry in them? It is very important that everyone should know what will happen to the

ports if we cannot obtain a proper and satisfactory agreement on the lines that my right hon. Friend indicated. I should like to know how my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry can help the ports that are under great pressure because of the current difficulties.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I shall certainly keep in touch with my right hon. Friend on the future of the ports. The catch in Icelandic waters has been good in the past year. The best solution to the problem facing my hon. Friend and all of us is to achieve a negotiated settlement, because a cod war would hit the ports very hard. It would hit everyone very hard.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: In the present situation of stalemate, which we hope will be temporary, will the Government impress on the Government of Iceland that, while the conservation of fish is important, the conservation of human life, whether British or Icelandic, is more important? Will the Government seek in the meantime, without prejudice to the issue of fishery limits, a working agreement during the winter on humanitarian grounds for the safety of those involved, whether British or Icelandic?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We shall seek this and will try to avoid all damage and any loss of life.

Mr. Laurance Reed: Does my right hon. Friend recall the previous dispute with Iceland when, for 12 years, the Foreign Office stuck to a particular line and it was discovered at the end of the day that international community support for that view had evaporated? In view of past experience, what account is my right hon. Friend now taking of the fact that there is now a large body of opinion in the world which supports the view that the Continental Shelf and the waters overlying it should be treated as a single organic unit, precisely because oil has been discovered in it?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I well remember the 1962 agreement because I negotiated it. I have every reason to remember it. If we are to have any alteration in the law of the sea in relation to the Continental Shelf it ought to be done at the law of the sea conference


in 1973 and not by unilateral action on the part of any country.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is it possible to clarify the future position a little further? If one of our ships had to take shelter off the Icelandic coast or, even more unfortunately, if it were wrecked and the crew removed to the police station, can my right hon. Friend say what the position would be then?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It would be better not to anticipate hypothetical situations. The Navy will do its duty towards any ship that is in difficulties as best it can. If it would help the House I might put in the Library a copy of the Icelandic proposals and of our proposals so that hon. Members can be well acquainted with them.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY, 18th DECEMBER

Members successful in the Ballot were:

Sir Edward Brown.
Sir Frederic Bennett.
Mr. Robert Redmond.

BILLS PRESENTED

MAPLIN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Secretary Rippon, supported by Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. John Peyton, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, Mr. Michael Heseltine, and Mr. Eldon Griffiths presented a Bill to provide for the reclamation from the sea of certain land for the purpose of the establishment of an airport and a seaport in south-east Essex, and for the development for other purposes

of so much of the land as is not required for that purpose; for the granting of planning permission required for the construction and operation of the airport and the seaport; and for purposes connected with those matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 37.]

FAIR TRADING

Mr. Secretary Walker, supported by Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Secretary Peter Thomas, Mr. Secretary Macmillan, Mr. Joseph Godber, Sir Geoffrey Howe, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. David Lane, and Mr. Peter Emery presented a Bill to provide for the appointment of a Director General of Fair Trading and of a Consumer Protection Advisory Committee, and to confer on the Director General and the Committee so appointed, on the Secretary of State and on the Restrictive Practices Court new functions for the protection of consumers; to make provision, in substitution for the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act 1948 and the Monopolies and Mergers Act 1965, for the matters dealt with in those Acts and related matters, including restrictive labour practices, to amend the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956 and the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1968, to make provision for extending the said Act of 1956 to agreements relating to services, and to transfer to the Director General of Fair Trading the functions of the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements; to make new provision in place of section 30(2) to (4) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968; and for purposes connected with those matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 36.]

Orders of the Day — SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.13 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Joseph Godber): I beg to move. That the Bill be now read a Second time.
We have before us today a straightforward and short Bill. Nevertheless, I suggest that it is an important one for the fishing industry, about some of whose problems we have just been hearing. I believe that this Bill will commend itself to the House. At its simplest its effect is no more and no less than to relax the time limits which Parliament originally imposed upon certain enabling powers to support the industry. It does not alter the powers themselves.
The main powers in question are those relating to the supply of funds for vessel loans by the White Fish Authority and Herring Industry Board; the grant aiding of the research and development financed by these two bodies through levies on the industry; and the operating subsidies. But, before saying more about how the Bill achieves these objectives, it might be helpful if I were to begin with a few sentences by way of background.
The items covered by the Bill are, of course, in no sense newcomers. The middle, near and inshore fleets have received a measure of assistance on both current and capital account for 20 years or more. These facilities have also applied to distant water vessels since 1962, following the recommendations of the Fleck Committee. Indeed, it is because that Committee saw the fleet becoming self-supporting within a period of 10 years that we now find, with an exception which I shall mention in a moment, that unless we pass this Bill the enabling powers whose duration was set by the Sea Fish Industry Act 1962 will cease to be available at the end of this year, or in the coming year.
The exception—and a very important one—relates to capital grants for vessels where, as a result of the Industrial Development Act passed by the last Gov-

ernment in 1966, the terminal date now appears only in the relevant subordinate instrument. This also expires at the end of the year, and we are currently considering, in the light of the views which the industry and the two statutory authorities have given us, what future provision should be made. This, of course, is something which hon. Members will shortly have a chance to discuss when we lay a new Grants Scheme before the House for approval, but I wanted to explain why the Bill does not mention the provisions under which vessel grants are paid.
Let me now explain in more detail what the Bill does. All the powers which it continues are set out in the Sea Fish Industry Act 1970, which was a consolidation Act. That brought together two kinds of power, the first exercisable only through a statutory scheme requiring an affirmative resolution of both Houses, and the second available to Ministers provided only that this House was prepared to vote the money.
For the first type of power we see no point in substituting some later expiry date for that originally set. Under this head we are concerned only with operating subsidy schemes, the duration of which is best settled as they are made. So Clause 1(1) simply repeals the time limit in the enabling power under which operating subsidy schemes can be made.
For the second type of support power, the type which in its present form does not require a scheme to be brought before Parliament fairly frequently, we have not thought it right to ask the House for an entirely open-ended extension. The Bill in Clause 1(2) provides for an extension to the end of 1973 of provisions that would otherwise run out at the end of this year. If, however, they are wanted after that there will have to be an order subject to affirmative resolution of this House. That is provided in Clause 1(3). The order could be for a year, or less, or more; and there could be successive extensions if necessary.
There are two main enabling powers covered by this procedure. One authorises lending to the White Fish Authority and to the Herring Industry Board so that they in turn can provide loans for vessels, and in certain cases for smaller operators of processing and icemaking


plants. The other enables grants from public funds to be given towards the research and development work carried out by the Authority and the Board, so supplementing what the two bodies devote to this from their levy income.
Before I turn to the future use of the main powers, let me dispose quickly of one of the minor ones that for drafting reasons gets disproportionate mention in the Bill, and may therefore seem more important to the House than is the case. I refer to the White Fish Marketing Fund and the Herring Marketing Fund, mentioned in Clause 1(2) and again in subsection (4). These were set up to provide working capital for any Authority or Board activity that called for it. Only the Herring Fund has been used and that in a modest way, but until the time comes for substantive legislation on the future of the Authority and the Board there seems to be no good reason for leaving out particular items when enabling powers generally are being extended.
If I were to sum up this Bill, I would say that it relaxes the present restrictions on the powers in question whilst retaining a wide measure of flexibility as to their future use. I believe this to be a sensible course for a number of reasons. In the first place experience over the last 10 years, that is, since many of these powers were first taken, illustrates so very clearly how difficult it is to attempt to predict the fortunes of what is still essentially a hunting industry. Profitability and capital renewal have both been running at a high level over the last couple of years and this of course is something to be welcomed. But experience has shown that this, among all industries, can be subject to short-term fluctuations. Consequently, the Bill, which is in any case a purely enabling measure, makes no attempt to prejudge what will be needed by way of financial assistance in the future—or for how long.
The answers to both these questions will clearly be affected not only by factors nearer home, but more particularly, as is all too evident at the present time, by international developments as well. Much will depend upon the level of fish stocks and their availability to those in pursuit of their lawful activities on the high seas, and here we shall continue to work for

equitable solutions. I do not think I need to add more about Iceland in the light of what the Foreign Secretary said I was glad to note the support which the House gave on this serious issue. Then there is the question of the way in which the structural and marketing aspects of Community fishery policy will affect our own support policies from next year. This is the other international factor we have to take into account, and the position here is open. There is, of course, a system of Community withdrawal prices, which it will be open to our industry to use: it is a voluntary system, calling first for the establishment of producers' organisations and their official recognition and then for decisions by them to use Community withdrawal prices. So one cannot say now what assurance in practice this system may be found to give to our industry.
Any support of the industry under the withdrawal price system would come from the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund—FEOGA—which is the basis of such payments. There may also be benefit to this country under future measures to be financed from the Guidance side of this Fund
The point I want to stress is that from now on we shall be playing our full part in the decision-making processes of the Community. We shall obviously make it our business to see that what is done takes full account of the circumstances of the British industry, as well as of the wider interest in the use to the best advantage of Community funds to which we shall be a major contributor.
Clearly there will be changes in our existing support arrangements, but it is impossible today to say precisely what they will be, or when they will be made. The Community regulations expressly provide for member States to grant financial aids in so far as the operations to which they relate contribute to the achievement of certain broad objectives with which we have little quarrel. There is a further provision, not so far used, for laying down common rules in this field—rules, that is to say, which would apply equally to the aids granted by all other member States as well as to our own. Obviously, therefore, the right course is to participate to the full in the shaping of these policies, and in the


meantime to ensure that there is no risk of any gap or discontinuity in our own familiar support measures in this country.
The Bill is a small but legally essential contribution to that course, and I invite the House—

Mr. Norman Buchan: It might have been useful for us to see a brief statistical breakdown so that we could know whether the extension is justified in financial terms. In fishery debates it is customary for information to be given of the economic situation in the industry in terms of production, landing value, and so on. Is that possible?

Mr. Godber: I will see whether in winding up the debate my hon. Friend can seek to provide such information. As the Bill provides primarily for the continuation of the existing arrangements, with no fresh proposals, I had not thought to weary the House with too much detail. It is a measure for extending existing powers which are well known to the House. I therefore commend the Bill to the House and ask for a Second Reading.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Fred Peart: I agree with the Minister that the Bill is short and straightforward. I thought at first that he would be brief in introducing it, but when he concluded his remarks I thought that we should have a long disertation about the effect of our entry into the European Community. I should like to debate that at great length, but not this evening. I think that we should make our speeches relatively brief, although that does not preclude my hon. Friends from pursuing other matters if they so wish. I shall ask the Minister a question about the EEC.
In view of the nature of the industry, the Bill is essential, as the Minister said. After all, fishing is a hunting industry subject to short-term fluctuations and, as sensible parliamentarians, we should make our legislation fit the needs of the industry. There is general agreement and no controversy on the Bill. I was enabled to have an excellent Press notice from the Department which gave full information about the effects of the Bill. No doubt the Minister will see that this information is put out to the industry and

to those who are affected. I congratulate those who are responsible for it.
The Minister in explaining the measure said that the Bill relaxes certain time limits currently imposed upon the financial support available to the white fish and herring industries. It extends until the end of 1973 the availability of loans for vessels, processing and ice-making plants and also grant aid for the research and development financed by the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board through levies on the industry. The Bill provides for subsequent use of these powers to be exercised through orders. The Minister was right to emphasise the clause which deals with the affirmative order procedure, which makes the orders subject to the approval of the House. The Bill removes the present time limit of 1st January, 1974, governing the payment of operating subsidies made under schemes previously approved by the House.
The Bill also refers to the support powers contained in the Sea Fish Industry Act 1970. That was a consolidation measure, and I am glad of that consolidation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) in 1969 speeded up legislation in the interests of the fishing industry and there was general agreement that the Act was a good one.
The 1970 Act consolidated earlier legislation containing powers first granted in 1962. It covered a 10-year period, which we all accepted that the industry needed. The aim of many fishery Ministers and hon. Members who took part in our fishery debates was to allow the industry 10 years in which to develop and to modernise the fishing fleet because of competition from Europe, Poland, the Soviet Union and even from Japan. Any legislation which enables the industry to modernise and to develop should be welcomed by the House. I never accepted the original "lame duck" theory of the Government, and they have now thrown that theory overboard. They have a bit more sense now than when they came into power. Here we have legislation to enable the industry to have resources at its disposal and we are arguing only about timing. No doubt some of my colleagues will develop the theme of the excellent research which is done in our research centres.
Some of the enabling provisions will expire at the end of 1972, and the Minister has given an assurance that nothing will be affected here. I assume that the loan facilities will apply to England, Scotland and Wales. According to the Press notice there will be separate arrangements for Northern Ireland. However, the operating subsidies are on a United Kingdom basis. Capital grants for the acquisition or improvement of fishing vessels are not covered by the Bill, but as the Minister said, previous legislation caters for this.
The Minister went on to argue about the European Community. When the Minister's predecessor made an announcement to the House on 18th July this year—I referred to it in my speech in the debate on 1st August—he warned the House that there was a problem about our entry into the European Community. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be too starry-eyed about Europe. Parliament has made its decision, but we shall still be in a minority in the Community and we shall still need to fight our corner, if I may put the matter in that way. We must not assume that when we go into the Community everything will be good for the fishing industry.
We have already discussed the uncertainty that faces inshore fishermen, and I should be out of order if I were now to deploy that argument. Today we are dealing with the White Fish Authority, the herring fleets and that section of the industry which is concerned with fishing in more distant waters.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be apathetic about these matters, and I am sure he will not ignore them. We wish him well and, if he has to negotiate in Europe on these matters, he will have our support in standing up for British interests. This is what the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor said on 18th July:
In considering the future of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board my right hon. Friends and I have had to take into account not only the position in his country but also what form of organisation will best serve our fishing and fish-using industries within the enlarged European Community.
The Community regulations foresee the establishment of a network of producers' organisations which, if fully achieved, would

leave no separate regulatory rôle for independent national bodies like the board and the authority. On the other hand there are functions for which continuing provision may be needed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1972; Vol. 841, c. 64.]
Therefore, there was uncertainty about the effects of our entry into Europe. It is all very well to say that some marketing structures may evolve or that producer co-operatives may come into being. The simple fact is that we have the White Fish Authority and the Board.
The Minister also seeks to strengthen the administration through amalgamation and also through dispersal of the centre of this activity to Edinburgh. This may be necessary in bringing about a measure of devolution to satisfy a measure of Scottish nationalism, and my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) no doubt will speak on that matter when he winds up the debate. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that the Authority, which is so important to the industry, could be jeopardised by our entry into Europe, especially in the transitional period. I should like to have Governmental assurances on this matter. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West, agrees or disagrees with that statement.

Mr. James Johnson: We are solidly in support.

Mr. Peart: I am glad to have my hon. Friend's agreement.
I raised with the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor the matter of staff transferred to the White Fish Authority's headquarters in Scotland. I have received many letters from people who work in the Authority, and it is obvious that some of the older staff members are anxious about their position. It is not always easy to be faced almost overnight with a transfer from London to the North with all the major commitments relating to family and other matters. I should like to have seen that decision deferred for a period of five years, but that suggestion was not accepted. However, I asked the Ministry whether it was possible to find suitable employment for any of the Authority staff within the Ministry. I should like to ask whether there have been any new developments and whether this matter is still being considered sympathetically. The Minister wrote me a sympathetic


letter and I know that he is aware of the problem. I trust that the Government in replying to this debate will be able to give me an adequate and suitable reply.
Let me conclude on this note. We are anxious to develop our fishing industry for we believe that the industry plays a major part in our economy. The importance of fish in our food supplies has been stressed so often in the past, and I have always stressed the importance of the industry to our defences. We tend to forget that in time of crisis our sea fish industry provides admirable personnel for the Royal Navy and the Forces which protect our shores. It is all very well to acquiesce in all that is going on and to hope that everything will be all right and that we shall never in our lifetime face another crisis. I trust that we never shall, but I believe that we must have adequate defences.
The sea fish industry plays its full part in our society. It not only provides food for our people but provides work in the industry itself and in the associated processing industries which are situated near our fishing ports. Above all, it is an industry which is an important part of our life and it makes major contributions in many ways. We shall support this measure, and hope that it will have a speedy passage through the House.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I should like to begin by welcoming my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to our fisheries debates. It is nice to see him back on the Front Bench in these debates.
This is a short Bill, it has been well introduced by both Front Benches and there is little to say about it. It is a conservation measure which seeks to continue the support for the fishing industry for another year or more.
I should like to put one important question to my right hon. Friend. He spoke of further legislation which, presumably, cannot be presented until we are in the Common Market and which will have to take account of the EEC regulations. Can my right hon. Friend give any idea when that legislation is likely to be presented to the House? Will it be early next year or towards the end of next year?
On the question of the EEC regulations, I think it can be said that we have had a satisfactory solution over fishing limits, but there are two regulations in the Common Market which are worrying the fishing industry to a considerable extent. The first regulations relate to grading and I understand that they came into effect on 1st February and are mandatory—which means that we shall have to accept them. However, those grading regulations are rather absurd. My inquiries have shown that there are three quality grades and five size grades, which makes a total of 15 grades. If a vessel fishes in two different grounds during its trip, it must produce another 15 grades for the second ground—in other words, fish from that trawler would have to be divided into about 30 different grades. This is an absurd situation and it will require an immense amount of skilled manpower to administer. I know that this matter is being raised with the EEC, but I hope that when the Government spokesman winds up the debate he will be able to assure us that we are making some headway. Surely these regulations are as absurd for the French and the Germans as they are for us.
There is a further worry in relation to the regulations on withdrawal prices, which are also complicated. Those regulations are not mandatory, but we shall have to accept them if we are to have any help from EEC compensation funds.
I understand that there are now more regional variations in withdrawal prices than there were when the EEC first propounded the doctrine, but I gather that towns far from the main centres of population, such as Aberdeen, will suffer under the EEC scheme of withdrawal prices. I hope that this point also will be dealt with in the Government reply.
I hope that I shall be permitted to say a few words about Iceland because we are discussing a Bill which provides money for operations of the fishing industry in the coming year. Those operations will be very much affected by the solution or otherwise of the dispute with Iceland.
There are two points I should like to make on this topic. The first relates to conservation. It is clear that we shall go as far as Iceland wants to go in terms of conservation. If genuine conservation is


to take place, then we shall accept any suggestions—provided that the conservation applies to Icelandic ships as well as to our own. However, recently the Icelandic propaganda machine has been saying that it is the view of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission that cod stocks are in danger round the coasts of Iceland and from this they draw the conclusion that Britain is over-fishing.
I want to make it clear to the House that the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission is a very important organisation and has expressed its views. My noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said earlier this year:
…but noble Lords will also recall that the international organisation that is responsible for fishery conservation in the Icelandic area is the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission.
She went on to say:
It was decided at the last meeting of the Commission, in May, 1971, that the condition of the Icelandic cod and haddock stocks was not such as to warrant any special conservation measures. This conclusion was reached on the basis of the latest available scientific advice, which had been agreed internationally by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 2nd March, 1972; Vol. 328, c. 1259.]
It has been said that this year the Commission has tended to reverse its decision and that it has implied that cod stocks are in fact in danger. I have made inquiries about that and I understand that the views of the Commission this year are based not on biological conservation but on economic effort. It has said that if the industry is properly organised it could catch the present amount of fish with half the effort or half the number of vessels. It has not implied in any way that cod stocks are being over-fished off Iceland, but merely that the fishing effort could be more economically organised. The House will agree that the Icelandic fishing industry is itself responsible for the over-fishing of herrings. It has also endangered its haddock stock and I hope that the same thing will not happen to cod.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) will find that the Continental Shelf Convention 1964 states clearly that the coastal State has a right to gas or oil in the ground of the Continental Shelf, but it specific-

ally excludes the sea above the Shelf and all resources in the sea, including fish.
It is clear that the claim made by the Icelandic representative in The Times this morning, that it is now accepted that the sea goes with the Continental Shelf, is wholly incorrect as the law stands. The position may be changed at the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, but at the moment it is an illegal claim and the Icelandic Government is also acting in contravention of the decision of the International Court.
I am sure that every hon. Member regrets the breakdown of the talks which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. My right hon. Friend said that we agreed to limit our catch by 25 per cent. less than the figure given by the International Court, which itself was less than our average over the last ten years. We have gone a long way in trying to reach a compromise. I hope very much that the Icelandic Government will realise that we can go no further and that we genuinely want to reach a settlement based on conservation.
We know the difficulties faced by the Icelandic Cabinet. We know who are the hawks and who are the doves. The trouble is that the hawks control the Icelandic gunboats. It would be disastrous if the Ministry of Fisheries authorised its gunboats to continue harassing British trawlers. Only yesterday they attacked two German trawlers. If that is to continue there can be no alternative but to send in the Royal Navy. One knows what effect that would have on Iceland. We do not want it and I am sure that the Icelandic Government do not. The answer is to stop the harassment until the talks continue and to try to reach some interim agreement which will last until the Law of the Sea conference convenes at the end of next year or 1974, when I hope very much that a final solution will be reached which is satisfactory to all. This is an interim problem which may exist for up to 18 months and if the Icelandic Government believe—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not continue for too long on this topic.

Mr. Wall: I will leave it at that. I support the Bill and the idea behind it. I hope that the basic problem which is troubling the industry at the moment, which is the Icelandic dispute, will be solved by commonsense on both sides.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I trust that I shall not step outside the fishing limits if I say a word or two about Iceland. It has been referred to and it is a matter of great concern to the fishing industry and, therefore, to the Bill, because the future of the industry is very much bound up with the Bill.
I shall not conceal that I have some regard for the Icelanders' wish to protect what is one of the most important industries in a small country. Equally, I am glad to support the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) in emphasising that we have made a generous offer to them, and that it is on an interim basis.
I raised the question of oil as a matter of equity. It is constantly put to me by Icelanders and they must get an answer. But the answer is now clear that there is a legal distinction between fishing and oil. It may be altered and perhaps it should be altered in equity. But our having made a reasonable offer to Iceland, the right policy will be for them to accept it as an interim measure, as the hon. Member for Haltemprice said, until the whole question of conservation, oil and fish can be thrashed out.
The right hon. Member for Working-ton (Mr. Peart) is right in thinking that I very much welcome the fact that some decisions about the fishing industry are now taken in Scotland. Workington is closer to Edinburgh than London. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will not wish to be absorbed into a Scottish community. If it sets his mind at rest, I am sure that we would be happy to offer Cumberland associate status with Scotland. We will welcome him if he likes to come to Edinburgh and discuss fish. It is a great success that we have at last prized one industry out of London. I consider it very satisfactory that it has gone to Edinburgh.
This is an enabling Bill which continues generally satisfactory legislation. No doubt people will have detailed criticisms of various parts of it, but it is

comparatively inexpensive. The fishing industry is one of the most valuable industries. Legislation has been continued by all parties for a considerable time, thereby giving stability and assurance to the industry. That is a very good thing. It is an excellent industry because not only does it give a lot of employment and good food to the country, but it has great social advantages in my constituency at least. It is an industry which retains people, which draws them back, and which offers employment to young people which they welcome. There are now 15 or more processing plants in Shetland. The Shetland fleet has been greatly improved over the last 10 years and fishing is now starting up in a big way in Orkney. It has important social aspects as well as economic ones and we are glad that we are to continue this general policy.
As the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office well knows, and as he agrees, the real danger about the Iceland situation is that it may divert very heavy fishing to other fishing grounds nearer home. Candidly, I take a selfish view about that. Some of the fishing grounds to which the heavy fishing will turn will be off the North of Scotland. There are already vast fleets from Eastern Europe and other places which are fishing heavily in those areas.
I am told by some experts that there is not a serious danger of over-fishing because fishing becomes uneconomic before stocks are reduced to a level at which they will not replace themselves. But I have some considerable anxieties. There is now an enormous catch of fish in the North Sea. In addition, there is heavy industrial fishing which must affect the food stocks of the ocean. I hope that the Government will give the maximum attention to this matter and undertake research and keep the situation closely monitored to see whether there will be heavy diversion of catching from the Iceland waters into those nearer home.
The next question is the discovery of oil. Again I am assured—and to some extent I accept the assurance—that there is not a major danger of pollution. The oil companies seem fairly certain that they can control it. But we would be unwise to think that there is no danger.


Heavy pollution in a small area could have a disastrous effect upon certain fishing communities. If there is any anxiety about pollution, it may make them hesitant about building boats and taking advantage of the various aids which are now given to fishing. The Government are accepting some responsibility. But I hoped that they would have introduced some sort of insurance fund, because I am not clear who would be liable if there was heavy pollution. In any case, I doubt whether inshore fishermen could undertake the heavy legal proceedings which might be necessary to establish liability. Therefore, I think that there should be a fund available to fishermen in the event of pollution and that the Government should again assure themselves that the maximum is being done to safeguard the coast and the inshore waters against the possibility of pollution by oil.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: What kind of pollution does the right hon. Gentleman have in mind that the inshore fishermen may encounter?

Mr. Grimond: I have several in mind. First, there is danger of rupture of pipes. Secondly, if we are to have offshore terminals, there will be considerable transfer of oil to tankers by a method which in other parts of the world has occasionally led to pollution, the extent of which may be arguable. Thirdly, there will be many secondary industries which could cause pollution. I was talking about pollution in general terms.
There are two other aspects to the influence of the oil industry. The fishing industry, particularly the inshore section, depends a great deal on comparatively few people. It is the expert skippers who really make the industry. It is conceivable that they may be seduced by the oil industry into heavily paid employment elsewhere. I do not suggest that the Government can do anything about that, but we should keep in mind the social effects. Secondly, what happens after the oil is finished? Fishing is of immense economic and social importance to many parts of the country, and we do not want to be left after 20 or 25 years with a fishing industry disrupted and oil finished. The Government cannot look

too far ahead, but they should look to the aftermath of oil.
I turn now to the question of the European Economic Community. We only have 10 years grave on limits. Everyone building a fishing boat is looking some years ahead, and the industry will soon want to know the next steps over limits. I hope that we shall press for the retention of the existing limits. It may well be that after the general conference on the sea the existing limits will have to be extended.
But perhaps the more immediate matter is the question of marketing. The concentration of discussion on limits has tended to make people forget about the marketing aspect of joining the Community. I was glad to hear the Minister refer to this matter. But are the Government satisfied that there is sufficient information to begin with? If not, should they not publish a paper of some kind about the choices which will face the industry and the steps it should take?
There is the position of producers' organisations. It has been pointed out that the main organisations are the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board. There is also the Highlands and Islands Development Board. I suppose that the latter would come into this to some extent as it is concerned with financing. There are other fishermen's organisations. The question is whether these organisations should be strengthened a great deal, and if they are they must be financed. The Minister has indicated that it is possible to provide finance under the Bill. I hope that money will be made available, therefore, for the strengthening of fishermen's organisations in accordance with what appears to be necessary in the Common Market. Apparently, any such sums would come out of the guarantee fund and there is no reason why they should not.
It was also indicated that there were regulations about size and grade, which will be of importance to the North of Scotland. There is also the question of the withdrawal prices, even if it is at present a question whether one accepts voluntarily this system or does not. All these matters will be of immediate importance to the industry and I hope that the Government will consider publishing further information and taking steps to


back up whatever decisions the industry itself may make.
Lastly, there is the question of fish farming and research into it. This is so far a hunting industry and will remain so for the near future. But there are signs that fish farming of various sorts may grow. There are places in Scotland, such as the lochs and voes, where it might well be carried on and this process may have great effect on the fishing industry. There is considerable lack of knowledge as to how far fish farming is practicable. If it is practicable, how far is it desirable? If it is desirable, how far is it to be financed? If fish farming is to be a major part of the fishing industry—although it will not take its place—I hope again that we shall have the support of the Government and the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board in informing fishermen about the situation.
I welcome the Bill. I draw attention to these new factors which have arisen and to the fact that the fishing industry can help us greatly. I hope that the all-party agreement on support for the industry will continue. Broadly speaking, with some reservations, we have so far been on the right lines.

4.55 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I am glad that the Bill has been introduced. I am sure that it will be helpful and effective in giving necessary assistance to the fishing industry. I am also glad that apparently it is in order for me to refer to the White Fish Authority. It is well known to hon. Members that it is extremely difficult by Parliamentary Question to get any details about the Authority or how it makes up its mind or what it does, and when one represents a fishing port the fishermen and others connected with fishing want to know a lot about the Authority. But, as I have said, it is extremely difficult to find out about it.
I have recently had one or two very strong conversations in the fishing port of North Shields with those interested in fishing, and this is a heaven-sent opportunity to raise what I wanted to raise. For instance, the White Fish Authority has done a very good job but, having dealt out through the taxpayer's money grants for building fishing vessels of one

kind and another—in North Shields we are extremely grateful for this—the Authority, as far as I can make out, is not interested in the least in whether the fishing fleet it has helped to create is adequately assisted by the ports from which these vessels fish.
In my constituency is the small village of Cullercoats, which is well known in the fishing industry. It has had fishing families for centuries. For example, the Lisles and the Donkins have been very well known for generations in the fishing world. Last Saturday at my surgery, a member of the Lisle family came to see me. He told me that he had a very good grant from the White Fish Authority for building a coble. Incidentally, when I tried to include the word "coble" in a Parliamentary Question, no one seemed to have heard of it. People thought it was my peculiar writing.
At any rate, my constituent has a very satisfactory coble, of which he is very proud and which he is putting into operation. But he complained that he has been denied by the Port of Tyne Authority a safe mooring for it. This is quite ridiculous. The taxpayers' money is involved, and I think that the Port of Tyne has the responsibility for seeing that safe moorings are available for the fishing fleet's vessels of various kinds which are supported by the taxpayers' money through the White Fish Authority. I was highly indignant to hear that this fisherman, a member of a fishing family of many years' standing, should be wondering what he ought to do, because the instructions which appeared to have been issued by the Port of Tyne Authority were quite ridiculous.
I telephoned my right hon. Friend's Department this morning. His officials did not seem to know much about the White Fish Authority or, for that matter, about the Port of Tyne Authority. My right hon. Friend's Department, after all, is responsible for the operations of the White Fish Authority. But once it has granted public money, does the Department take any interest in ensuring that those who get the advantage of grants are properly serviced and provided for by the authorities which have these subsidised craft within their ports? I am referring specifically, of course, to the Port of Tyne Authority. I am very annoyed with it, and I hope that someone


will take the members of that authority and hit them hard on their heads. It is quite ridiculous for a fisherman to have a new coble and no safe mooring.
My second point refers to the fact that, thanks to the Ranger firm, we have a very important trawler fleet now. That firm has had long experience and knowledge of fishing. It has done extremely well with freezer trawlers. I hear suddenly that the Port of Tyne Authority is insisting that those trawlers go higher up the river. This will take them right away from the area where they can be properly maintained. It is quite ridiculous, and I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will have a proper inquiry into the actions of the Port of Tyne Authority.
Our Ranger trawler fleet is a growth industry. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was right when he said that thanks to our men, to our direction and to the assistance that we have had, fishing in the Port of Tyne is a growth industry. But now along comes the Port of Tyne Authority and says, "There is no place for you to moor anywhere near where you normally get your maintenance done." It is in the public interest as well as that of the taxpayer that the trawler fleet should be properly maintained. But the Port of Tyne Authority does not seem to mind. It simply says, "You must move up the river." The two big firms of fishing trawlers in the port are highly irate, and I am irate on their behalf.
The next matter which I wish to raise relates to marketing. We intend to build a new fish quay. It is very important that it should conform to what is required by the people who will use it. I am sure that the Port of Tyne Authority has some very good directors. But they are not fishermen. They know nothing about fishing. They know nothing about what the fishing fleet wants. What is even worse, they do not seem in the least interested in what it wants.
I gather that we have a grant. However I had a most extraordinary answer to a Parliamentary Question that I put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Apparently the grant comes out of the funds of the Port of Tyne Authority. This

must be some new alteration to financial arrangements. Apparently the Port of Tyne is to finance the new fish quay. I believe that it bought the old one. The new quay will cost well over £2 million. We are grateful to the Ministry for increasing the grant. We are to get a 60 per cent. grant to build the new fish quay. But it is no good building it if it does not enable fish marketing to operate properly and if it does not enable the trawler fleet and the cobles to have what they want if they are to carry on an efficient industry. The Port of Tyne Authority is not providing sufficient moorings for the trawler fishing fleet. That again is quite ridiculous. I cannot understand why it cannot. I do not know who is responsible for the Port of Tyne Authority.
The next thing that happened was that I received a letter from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries, who seems to control our ports. I do not know whether he knows anything about fishing. I rather doubt it. But he has written to me saying that he is doing his best to help. Of course, all Ministers try to help. The question is whether they stretch their powers and have the imagination to know what goes on when two or three different departments are involved. In fact I had a Question down to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asking whether he was satisfied that there was proper cooperation between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the department of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries on matters relating to this very important industry. I have no idea whether my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries could crack the members of the Port of Tyne Authority on their heads, but I want their heads cracked, because the whole situation is deplorable.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries announced that the Port of Tyne Authority is extremely short of money. One reason is that trade on the Tyne has dropped. It is part of our unemployment problem on the Tyne. I do not know whether the Port of Tyne Authority is going bankrupt. No one tells me. I have to try to find out for myself, and that is very difficult. However in view of the shortage of money in the Port of Tyne Authority, my right


hon. Friend says that he hopes that the fishing industry will find the balance of the money required for the new fish quay. That is all very well. I think that the fishing fleet will be prepared to look at what it can do to help. We have the P. & O. helping us with the Ranger group. But the fishermen do not get any help from the Port of Tyne Authority. The Authority seems to think that it has no responsibility.
I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about the situation. I believe in making use of every Minister. I do not care whether he has the powers. If he has not got the powers, he may as well take them. It was a heaven-sent opportunity. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is always very helpful. Perhaps he can find some money out of the Industry Act funds.
It is no use spending 60 per cent. of £2½ million on a fish quay which will not serve the interests of the trawler fleet and provide the necessary marketing facilities. At the moment we have a very good marketing set-up. In fact it is a very good industry in North Shields. But it is no good if the new fish quay does not serve the needs of the trawler fleet.
When these very distinguished bodies of trawler fleet owners talk to me, I think that my only contribution in this House is to stimulate Ministers to action and to say where it is needed. Certainly I think action is needed in the Port of Tyne.
The Government have said that everything will be done to help the development areas. I believe them. However I cannot think that it is helping a development area if the Port of Tyne Authority builds a new fish quay for an industry which is subsidised very substantially by the taxpayer if the money is not available to build a proper fish quay.
I do not know whether it is possible within the Bill, but as everybody has talked about all kinds of things, I am talking about all kinds of things.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries said that the application for the building of the new fish quay had to be in very early next year and must be completed within six months. Of all the idiotic things! Is it not known that on Tyneside one cannot just pick

up builders of fish quays and expect them to build a fish quay within six months? I have never had to make a contract with anyone for the building of a fish quay. However, I hope that the Bill—it seems to extend everything—will extend the powers of the Minister for Transport Industries so that, if builders can be found—it is difficult to find sufficient builders to carry out work covered by improvement grants—the time may be extended. It is ridiculous to say that a new fish quay can be built within six months. I do not believe that my right hon. Friend has discovered whether there are any builders available who can build fish quays. If they have other work, good luck to them, because we are short of work on the North-East coast. But what is the use of saying that the fish quay must be built within six months without knowing whether the best, most appropriate and competent of firms which carry out such work is available. I hope to goodness that the Bill, which extends to all kinds of things which are almost Greek to me, will enable the time to be extended because there is not a suitable builder of fish quays available.
This is an absolutely marvellous occasion. I have never had such luck to find a day on which I can raise all these controversial points.
I want to know what all the Ministers of all Departments—the Prime Minister, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, the Minister of Transport Industries, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and so on—are going to do to support what we believe is a growth industry, provided that Iceland does not wreck all our plans. We have done jolly well with the Ranger trawlers. In some way one of our firms is mixed up with Aberdeen. I do not know how that comes about, but apparently that is the position.
I want to know which Department is responsible for doing what is essential to support our fishing fleet, the people who work on the fish quay, the merchants who sell, and so on. I want to know to which Minister in future I should address Questions in order to get answers. Which Minister has responsibility in this matter? I am sick of rushing round from one Minister to another. I am tired of putting down Questions to Ministers who have not the slightest idea of what is


happening in other Departments. They do not seem to know about employment in my area. I know that everybody says that North Shields is a small fishing port compared with Hull and the other great ports, but it is just as important from the point of view of the people who work there and the contribution that it makes to the country's economy. We are jolly good contributors on the North-East coast. The men who served in either the Merchant Navy or the Royal Navy on minesweepers and other vessels during the war should have everything possible done for them.
I do not know why the Port of Tyne Authority should say that it has not got the money. Somebody must find out why it has not got the money. I do not know whether it is a competently run Authority. It is not for me to say. Sometimes the Authority is very nice to me; at other times it cracks me on the head.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has recently said that the Authority, through the White Fish Authority, I think, spent £16,000 on something. That is no good to a fishing fleet which requires a new quay. We want a great deal of help.
I should like to know why all these Government Departments are concerned. I do not think that the Minister for Transport Industries knows anything about fishing—I do not see why he should—but the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should know about fishing.
I am delighted with the Bill because it has given me this opportunity to say what I think. However, if the Port of Tyne Authority cannot do its job properly because it has not got the money, I hope that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will find the money under provisions in the Industry Bill. We have spent masses of money on all kinds of things. I want to be quite sure that this important fishing industry in North Shields, which gives consistent employment in which has always been a fishing port, is properly treated.
I am grateful to the Minister for bringing in the Bill. If its proposals are acted upon by the people who can act upon them, it will be very successful. But, for

heaven's sake, I hope someone will let me know what it is all about and whether the Port of Tyne Authority will do the job that it ought to do. Otherwise, we must have a new Port of Tyne Authority.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has referred to a number of matters effecting the fishing industry in her division. It occurred to me as she was speaking that only a foolhardy man would venture to trespass in her territorial waters, and I certainly do not propose to do so.
I agreed with the Minister when, at the commencement of his speech, he said that, notwithstanding its brevity, the Bill is extremely important for the British fishing industry.
I have a particular interest in the Bill, not only because I share the concern of all hon. Members for the anxieties of the fishermen of Britain at this time but because it continues the policies started in the Sea Fisheries Act 1969 for which I was responsible. The House will recall the report of the Fleck Committee and the Sea Fish Industry Act 1962 initiated by the then Government and which was based upon it. That Act did not work well, for reasons of which hon. Members will be aware, and as a result the industry found itself in increasing difficulty.
We decided that the industry needed continuing support on a new basis—namely, an annual subsidy related to profitability. We also saw the subsidy as an instrument to encourage efficiency and related it to the efficiency of each individual vessel. I am glad to think that the policy has been successful and that this is recognised not only by the industry, but by the Government.
I recall that when we debated these questions in detail in November 1968 right hon. and hon. Members opposite were very tardy in their acceptance of the new principles. The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), whose speech today was on the whole a good contribution, called the 1969 Act
a stop-gap rather than a cure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November, 1968; Vol. 772, c. 922.]
The Bill seems to indicate that the Government now regard it as having been


a cure rather than a stop-gap. That is certainly the view of the industry.
At that time we were concerned with the difficulties created by imports of frozen fish fillets and we reimposed a tariff of 10 per cent. on them. Perhaps the Minister will say something about the present import position when he replies.
What is significant is the way that the industry has taken advantage of the policy. It has created confidence, it has increased efficiency, and it has not been costly to the country.
Section 4 of the 1969 Act, consolidated in the 1970 Act, improved the financial resources of the White Fish Authority, to which several hon. Members have referred. I should like to ask some questions about the Authority and its future.
The then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, now Leader of the House, obscured matters in his statement on 18th July when he referred to a provisional five-year period for the White Fish Authority. He may not have intended the word "provisional" to convey the doubt that it did, but I can confirm what my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) said—that his statement has created uncertainty and insecurity in the minds of those employed by the White Fish Authority. The Leader of the House made a critical attack on the Authority in 1970 before he took office, and that gave his use of the word "provisional" rather darker undertones.
My first question relates to the removal of the headquarters to Edinburgh. Will the Minister say precisely what effect this will have—this is to repeat the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington—on the staff now employed in London? I understand that the move is to be made early next year. Is there not a danger that a good deal of valuable expertise will be lost to the industry as a result of the move? I am in favour of the dispersal of Government offices, even to Scotland, but I am also concerned lest the industry in England and Wales suffers as a consequence of the move. The presence of the Product Development team at Epsom is a contribution, but it is not a sufficiently strong

guarantee, and some assurance is required from the Minister.
We should be told more about the future rôle of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board. I return to the words used by the Leader of the House, "a period provisionally set at 5 years". What is to be the rôle of the Authority and the Board in the EEC? Other countries, for example Ireland and Holland, have decided that their statutory boards have a clear rôle in the EEC. What about the Agriculture Intervention Board under the Chairmanship of Sir Con O'Neill? Will it have any responsibility for fish?
We are also concerned to know who is to form and administer producer organisations responsible under EEC regulations for important activities such as determining the levels of withdrawal prices, which have been referred to, and claiming financial support for unsold fish from Community funds. The Minister referred to this very sketchily. I can imagine what he would have said if my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington or I had made that kind of skimpy statement from that Dispatch Box. The right hon. Gentleman has been less than candid with the House on this important matter, and we need to know more about it.
Another vital question is whether the present grant and loan scheme for building new vessels and for improvements will continue within the Community? Who is to be responsible for administering all EEC regulations? Is it to be the Ministry, or will the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board have a part to play in relation to the regulations in the EEC? Otherwise, what functions will there be left for them to perform? The Minister must apply his mind to that issue and give us some fuller explanations today.
The Minister should say whether or not there is a rôle for the statutory boards, as otherwise the agony and uncertainty which they have suffered since June 1970 will continue for another four or five years. Make no mistake about it. The White Fish Authority has not been a happy authority since the Government came to power. It is the Minister's duty to set at rest the minds of those who work conscientiously on the staff of the


Authority today. It would be better if today the Minister were to say clearly to them that their term of life is four or five years, instead of leading them up the garden path as his predecessor has done for the last two years. I have said enough to show that the position is highly unsatisfactory and that some clarification is urgently needed.
In the final analysis the Bill and the previous legislation make sense only if the industry is given fair treatment in the broader international context. There are two critical developments which loom large over our debate, and right hon. and hon. Members have referred to them. The first is the unilateral action of the Government of Iceland, and the other is our imminent entry into the EEC.
On the first, I am sorry that the talks with the Iceland Government broke down. As the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon, one significant point in the context of the Bill is that the compromise proposal made by this Government to the Icelanders envisaged a drop of 25 per cent. in our deep-sea catch. That is a substantial concession, and if it had been accepted by the Icelandic Government it would have been necessary for us to have been told more today about its effect on the industry and what additional measures the Government had in mind to help the industry to meet a new and grave situation.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I do not wish to put words into the mouth of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but I think he said that the offer was a 25 per cent. reduction on the 1971 catch.

Mr. Hughes: That is correct. I accept the qualification.
I understand that the British Trawlers' Federation and the Transport and General Workers' Union were represented in Iceland and that they subscribed to those terms in an effort to secure a settlement with a country which is a friend and ally of many years' standing. It seems to me that to reject the kind of proposal that was made by Her Majesty's Government over the weekend is to strain that friendship. It is distasteful to the British people to see British trawlers harassed on the high seas in what has been their traditional fishing ground, especially after

the British Government have conceded the possibility of a substantial fall in our deep-sea catch.
I hope that there will be searching second thoughts in Iceland, as no one here wishes to see a deterioration of the excellent relations that we have enjoyed with that country. No country has been more anxious than Britain to effect good international rules governing fishing operations, both as to conservation and as to conduct on fishing grounds. We played a leading part in bringing the Convention on the Conduct of Fishing Operations in the North Atlantic into being, and this was signed by us and by 17 other countries which fish the whole of the North Atlantic. I hope, therefore, that Iceland will reconsider the proposals put forward by the Government, and will do that very soon, so that there can be a resumption of the talks on the reasonable basis which the Government have offered.
The general position of our fishing industry in the EEC is the other critical factor. The Governments of the Six help their fishermen in various ways—perhaps not in precisely the same way as we do, but in ways which are at least as effective in money terms. I hope that our fisheries policy within the EEC will not be less effective. Given parity of treatment the British fishing industry can compete with any comparable industry anywhere in the world, and I hope that the expertise which the White Fish Authority has built up will be used by the Government when we are in the EEC. This is what creates anxiety. Will our policy be as good, as effective and as constructive when we are in the EEC as it is under the Bill? I hope that we shall get a positive answer from the Minister.
Our fishing industry makes a most important contribution in terms of providing food, of saving imports and, not least, of providing employment for some of the most stalwart members of our community, and for those reasons I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I would not wish to follow the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) in any great detail, but he talked about withdrawal prices and the price paid for unsold fish. As I understand it—perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to confirm


this—FEOGA will be responsible for 75 per cent. of whatever price is paid, and the producers' organisations will be responsible for fixing the actual price paid for unsold fish. In the final analysis, the producers' organisations might have to find no money at all, and the whole of the amount paid might come from FEOGA.
I certainly join other right hon. and hon. Members in welcoming the Bill. As has already been said, it is a continuation. Possibly its most important provision is the facility for the operating subsidies to continue to be paid for the foreseeable future. That future includes our entry of the Common Market, and to that extent it is almost open-ended. When my hon. Friend replies to the debate, I hope that he will be able to give us some indication of how he sees negotiations proceeding for the continuation of the payment of these operating subsidies when we are a fully integrated member of the Common Market. At the moment, the inshore fleet particularly is doing very well. We can all welcome that, but these operating subsidies are an integral part of the individual boat's economy and they cannot do without them.
The Minister mentioned research and development, which is of course administered by the White Fish Authority. When the various producers' organisations have been set up—for the inshore fleet, the middlewater fleet and the distant-water fleet, or whatever the interests in the industry finally decide on—most of the operating subsidies, if not all, will be administered by the producers' organisations themselves. I understand that they will also administer the grant and loan system.
In other words, immediately these organisations are set up, there will be a large erosion of the sphere of activity of the White Fish Authority and indeed of the Herring Industry Board. We must ask the Government to give us—today if possible, but if not in the near future—some indication of how they see the White Fish Authority developing or continuing.
It is all very well to say that producers' organisations can administer the matters that I have mentioned, but they obviously

cannot deal with such things as research and development. Things move very fast these days. That is a truism, but they move particularly fast in the realms of technology. Television cameras now go down in the cod end of the net to watch the behaviour of fish.
No one can expect producers' organisations to carry on where the television camera left off, as it were. A good deal of research has to go on into what is actually happening, so there must be a continuing rôle in research and development for the White Fish Authority. I should be grateful to know how my hon. Friend and the Government see this developing.
The mechanism for paying these operating subsidies will be the producers' organisations. When do the Government envisage the takeover, as it were, the change of function between the Authority and the organisations? The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked about the setting up of these organisations and the grants available. Again, as I understand it, FEOGA will be responsible for 60 per cent. of the running costs in the first year, 40 per cent. in the second, 30 per cent. in the third and 20 per cent. in the final year. That is the four-year subvention to running costs.
That again is all very well. Provided that the thing is working efficiently, undoubtedly, after four years, they will be self-supporting, but that does not take into account the very important questions of research and development. At the moment, Her Majesty's Government pay a grant of £ for £ with the White Fish Authority for its research and development programme, with an annual limit of £300,000. Is it envisaged that this process should go on? It is not covered in any detail in the Bill, although grants generally to the Authority are covered. The Herring Industry Board at present gets a 50 per cent. grant for the same purpose.
If the producers' organisations take over the administration of various schemes for the herring industry, presumably the scope of activity of the Board will be reduced, like that of the White Fish Authority. Again, the Government must give us a clear indication of their thinking on developments here.
Obviously, the producers' organisations and the White Fish Authority—or something to take its place—and indeed the Herring Industry Board, must go hand in hand and must be developed in tandem otherwise we shall be in vacuo—if one can be in vacuo at sea—for a long time. That cannot be good for the fishing industry.
I very much hope that the House will give this excellent Bill a Second Reading and that it will continue to do the work for which it is proposed—continuing a viable fishing industry in the United Kingdom.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I doubt whether any industry in this land has so much good will as fishing, because of our insular position, our past history and many other factors. I am sure that the Minister knows that whatever is said on the Opposition benches is not vindictive. There is no animus towards the Government as a Government. Whatever we say is directed towards the future welfare of the deep sea or inshore fishing industry. He will accept today that all exchanges upon Iceland are absolutely at one. It is a bipartisan team here in the sense of looking after our own people who are our constituents: we know them from meeting them in the fish docks.
Deep-sea fishing is an important industry. Fish is a protein source. The Minister of Agriculture, who is a Lincoln man, knows that if fat Belgian farmers, our future partners in the Common Market, come to a Lincolnshire market and buy large amounts of beef, that has a corresponding effect on the auctions and markets for fish on the Humber. So there is an intimate connection. In the post-war situation, this industry has been an invaluable saver of exports.
The dangers of deep-sea fishing weed out the slackers. At this stage in our history and our overseas relations, it is important to have men of guts, particularly in the coming winter in Icelandic waters. December comes in this week; we shall have 24 hours of darkness and 40 degrees of frost, and men out of Hull and Fleetwood will be fishing in conditions like that. If they are harassed by people who in the past have been our

colleagues in international fishing, as the Icelanders have been, we expect our people to be looked after.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) is a man of many parts. Today he is a Daniel come to judgment. He was the architect of this measure. Leaders of the industry have nothing but praise for the measures he introduced, for the welfare of the industry is based upon what the Labour Government did in 1968. Let us not forget my right hon. Friend's faithful lieutenant, the former hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith, now Lord Hoy and in another place. No one has done more than the former hon. Member for Leith as a Labour watchdog in the past.
This is an enabling Bill and it continues the course of events. In 1962 we were in difficulties, so the Government of that day, now the present Government, listened to a man called Fleck. In 1968 we thought Fleck not so good; hence we introduced a Bill. I remember the debate vividly. My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey talked about a subsidy geared to efficiency—which is the basis of the present measure. A fellow Welshman had another saying which I couple with that. Morgan Philips talked in Copenhagen of "Methodism before Marxism".
Today we extend these measures until 1973. They have been an absolute tonic and have been welcomed not only by us but by the unions, too, because if the owners are doing well, so are the men on the deck who catch the fish. The measures have stood the test of time. It would be utter folly to discard anything like this now, especially when we are entering the EEC and in the light of our difficulties in Icelandic waters.
We are building up a modern and efficient fleet on this financial basis. For the Minister's benefit, I give a short quotation from Fishing News International about a famous family firm in Hull, just to show how this measure has benefited our men in Hull and many other places.
The whole fish freezer stern trawler St. Benedict was launched in August from the yard of Ferguson Brothers (Port Glasgow) Ltd. The 245 ft. long vessel is the sixth trawler to be built by the yard for the Hull firm, Thomas Hamling and Co. Ltd.


These are Class J vessels, and we have had four built over the last four years. That is an indication of the health of the industry, and it has been based upon a measure of this nature.
In the light of what I have to say later, I mention that another famous firm in Hull, Tom Boyd, had a boat called the "Boston Lincoln" which, since last September, has been off Patagonia fishing for hake. I shall ask a question later about the Government's activities and what they are doing in the light of giving finance of this nature to build vessels and enable them to function efficiently against other fleets such as those of the Soviet Union and Japan. What is the Government's policy, if they have one, for the next 10 or 20 years for the deep-sea fishing fleet?
It is important that we still have these family firms. I see in the industry not only a beginning but a well-developed tendency towards monopoly, towards larger fleets owned by public companies. I have advocated nationalisation for a section of our deep-sea fleet, but that has not met with my party's approval—at least, it is not in our manifesto.
In the light of the history since we passed the previous Bill and of the success of these financial measures, it is in no vindictive spirit that I say that on winding up our debate in 1968 the present Minister of State for Agriculture said that he had misgivings about our measures. This induced a waspish comment from my right hon. Friend that this was a qualified welcome in sour tones. Perhaps my right hon. Friend has forgotten saying that. He was correct to say it at that time.
The logic of all this is that we hold on to and increase all these measures, especially when entering the EEC. They have given stability to our workforce. I say that because the Minister talked earlier about international factors. The EEC is one such factor. We shall be coming into what is termed a common fisheries policy, a CFP. It would be out of order to go into detail about that, but in view of what has been said about the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board, and other bodies, I should like to know what will happen to them. We should hang on to the instruments we have because next year

we shall have a tough period of bargaining about them and about the changes inside the Common Market.
We had an example on this last night in the bipartisan debate in which both sides of the House were united on the matter of the weight of lorries, 10 ton axles and goodness knows what else. In our fishing industry I want to see an equally bipartisan, united fight inside the EEC on the whole matter of defending it and giving succour to it. Last night's debate was a foretaste of what is to come. We shall need all the weapons in our armoury when we are debating these matters inside the EEC. If we have to make concessions, will the Minister say what they are likely to be? The more I listen to Ministers, the more I think of the famous sledge in the snow and the wolves which were pursuing it. Occasionally a body left the back of the sledge. That was a sort of hurling off of hostages. We shall hurl off our hostages when we begin discussing within the EEC a number of institutions which have previously served us so well. Obviously, some concessions will have to be made.
Without asking the Minister to be a fortune-teller, I should like him to say what our difficulties will be and what concessions we are likely to make next year when we are bargaining in the EEC about the common fisheries policy.
I turn briefly to Iceland. Whatever our views about over-fishing in the northeast Atlantic, conservation measures and the dubiety of Iceland's case, I remember the Icelanders telling me, last September when I was in Iceland, that of their total exports 92 per cent. was fish. I do not accept that for a moment. I should have thought that it was well under 50 per cent., because the Icelanders forgot in their estimate to put in tourism and exports of aluminium, which come here, and other items which could be legitimately within that total.
The fleets of all nations are steadily fishing out the Barents Sea, Bear Island, the Faroes and elsewhere. Sooner or later in New York the conference on the law of the sea will take place. It will begin next year, and may take two or three years to finish. New limits will then receive an international imprimatur, and we must accept that in two, three or four years' time the developing nations, perhaps, will say that they want 25-miles


or 50-mile limits. We must be honest and not say that we shall fight with gunboats continually to safeguard limits if the International Court in future decides on deeper and wider limits. For example, the Polish mackerel fleet has for many years fished off Senegal. Senegal has now imposed a limit of 200 miles, so the Polish deep sea fleet is in enormous difficulties off Cape Verde and Senegal.
All this means for the deep-sea fleet diminished catches, longer voyages, increased overheads in wages and fuel and, at the end of the day, the "added value" factor will diminish for the fleet in Hull. Hence, the Bill is vital to ports like my own.
I have talked about the weather that is coming next month in Iceland and the need for the Minister to think about this. If the Icelanders behave as some fear they will—I hope they will not—and if they take the law into their own hands, we must safeguard our own people. It is imperative that we protect the lives and limbs of our constituents.
Is the door closed completely with Iceland, or is there a possibility of talks being held later in London? I have heard a whisper that this is not impossible. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about this. As I said earlier, naval action between 12 and 50 miles would aggravate the situation, but we must wait and see what happens.
What is Government policy for our deep-sea fishing fleet over the next 10 to 20 years? Are the Government thinking about this. Is the Bill just a stopgap to carry us over 1973 and possibly 1974? It is important for those of us who represent fishing ports to know this.
I said earlier that the Tom Boyd line is conducting a successful fishing experiment off Patagonia in conjunction with Argentina. I know that this is probably a Foreign Office matter, but in the matter of fishing limits it is important for the next several years that we maintain our claim, if it is a claim—our possession, so to speak—to the Falkland Islands and South Georgia. If we are to see over-fishing in the North-East Atlantic, with fishing limits going against us, and the North Sea becoming an EEC lake, we must think in terms of going to the South Atlantic. Over a six-months voyage the

Soviets caught 240,000 tons of South Atlantic cod. The Russians are fishing in the South Indian coast off Kerguelen There is plenty of fish in those waters.
We must think in global terms if in Hull, Fleetwood, Leith, Aberdeen and Grimsby we are to maintain work for the men who work on these vessels. I believe that our men of Fleetwood and of Hull are as good as any fishermen from Murmansk. If the Russians can catch 240,000 tons we can catch more. Our fishermen are as good as any.
I give the Bill my full blessing and express the hope that the Government will attempt to work out in the near future a positive, clear and definite policy for our deep sea fishing fleet.

5.54 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: I believe that all hon. Members will agree with what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) said about a bipartisan approach to the Common Market fisheries problems, in the same way as we achieved a bipartisan approach to the question of lorry axle weights yesterday. Fisheries was one question which united people of all parties in the Common Market negotiations to seek to achieve one end. I hope that this approach continues.
I have been in touch with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office about one or two anomalies which have operated against a special class of vessels—the line fishing vessels—in my part of the world. I hope that this opportunity of an extension of the financial arrangements will be taken to consider if there are any anomalies and, if there are, to iron them out.
One of the most important aspects of the extension of this legislation is research and development, because of the approaching Conference on the Law of the Sea. A real problem is developing arising from the high and increasing cost of protein, which is encouraging everyone to go in for industrial fishing. We must get the right balance between industrial fishing and fishing in our own waters for human consumption.
I hope that we can ensure that the money for research and development is


spread evenly between all sections of the fishing community.
As Norway has not acceded to the Common Market, it is likely that her pressures will be to extend her fishery limits. If at the same time we have pressures from Iceland and other countries, we are in for a very difficult time. This may strengthen our hands in our negotiations in regard to adapting the present Common Market fisheries policy.
The importance of the Conference on the Law of the Sea cannot be over-stressed, and I greatly hope that all the necessary preparatory work will be done and all the finance will be made available to ensure that we are able to take the best advantage of it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) mentioned difficulties being experienced in her constituency. In Aberdeen considerable difficulties are arising from the landing of inshore fish. I hope that something can be done to resolve the difficulties.
I warmly support the Bill.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) have expressed the disappointment which is felt throughout the House at the breakdown of the negotiations with Iceland. Our primary concern at this stage is for the safety of the crews and of the vessels fishing in that area.
We must ensure that there is a close and continuing discussion with the trawler owners so that they maintain constant radio communication. At this time of year it is essential that this be maintained. While there is a possibility of harassment, it must always be a temptation for a skipper to go off the air to keep his position quiet so that he can fish in comparative comfort at this time of year. I hope that the importance of constant radio communication being maintained will be drawn forcibly to the attention of all skippers fishing in Icelandic waters.
The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) said that the question of extending limits is not confined to Iceland and that there are already possibilities of Norway extending her limits,

primarily because of her decision not to join the EEC, although I believe that she would have wanted to do so, anyway.
I have been in touch with the Norwegian Ambassador. He gives me the categoric assurance that what the Norwegians are thinking of is a positive development for the Conference on the Law of the Sea. The Norwegians are indicating their views publicly, but we are not to be faced with what we have been faced off Iceland, namely, a unilateral declaration of an extension of fishing limits.
Almost every hon. and right hon. Member who has spoken so far has given a totally unqualified welcome to the Bill. They have all said what a marvellous Bill it is and how well the system is working. I find myself, perhaps not unsually, not agreeing completely with some of their sentiments. I give the Bill a qualified welcome because there is a lot to be said and a lot to be discussed about the future of the fishing industry. I was disappointed with the Minister that he did not take the opportunity of giving a wider view of the state of the industry, how it is developing and how he sees it developing. The Bill merely extends existing legislation and in one way or another goes back over 10 years. But after 10 years one would have thought that (here would have been a close examination of the industry's development and of the kind of direction it should develop in during the coming 10 years.
No one doubts that one of the main intentions in the original Act of achieving an efficient fishing industry has been achieved. One has only to look at the fishing ports to see what has happened. In Aberdeen over the past 10 years, the number of fishing vessels has dropped dramatically. It is fair to say that the fleet has been almost decimated and yet more fish are being caught. That is a measure of efficiency and we welcome it. It means that the vessels which are sailing out into these wild waters are bigger and safer with more crew comforts. As the total amount of money paid for the catch has increased so the earnings of the fishermen have increased correspondingly. Again, that is something we welcome.
There is one vital element in this series of policy discussions which has never been


mentioned and that is the effect upon the consumer. Where does the consumer enter into this? How far is an efficient industry based on the gross of the catch not in terms of the value but in terms of the volume? It is possible, and it has happened, for the annual catch to decrease but, because of scarcity value and other factors, for the total value of the catch to increase. The volume could go down yet under the previous legislation the greater the value of the catch the lower the subsidy.
The lower the subsidy the more the Government are pleased, because this has proved to be a very economic scheme to the taxpayer. But it is only economic to the taxpayer at the expense of the consumer who is having to pay more in the shops. There is evidence in figures, for which I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan), that the price of fish in the shops is increasing rapidly. We do not know what is to happen over the next few months when we shall be faced with an inevitably smaller proportion of the catch coming from Iceland.
It is interesting that the hon. Member for Fife, East had a reply to a Question by the Secretary of State for Scotland about the volume of fish landed in Scottish ports. The figures show that in 1972, compared with the corresponding period in 1971, there was an increase of less than 1 per cent. in the amount of fish landed. With the exception of February when there appeared to have been a dramatic rise of 145,000 cwt. in one month over the same month in the previous year, there was a general decline in the catch landed in Scotland.
I do not wish to quote too many figures as the House has a great deal of business before it tonight, but in the debate on 1st August on the inshore fisheries orders we were told that earnings were up by 30 per cent. Those earnings were made on a smaller volume of catch and therefore I would have thought that the Minister should examine what is happening. Is the trend since 1969 towards a very big increase in the value of the catch and an increase in the profitability expected to continue? The Minister told us in August that gross profits had doubled in the last 10 years. This rise was after deduction of operating cost including men's wages,

so there is a great increase in the profitability of the industry.
It may be that profitability is linked with stability and that as long as the fishermen are able to get increased profits they will be happy. As long as they get increased profits the Government are happy because that reduces the amount of subsidy to be paid by the Treasury. I am not sure, however, that the consumer will be happy. The figures for the last two years—and I quote those two years simply for a convenient period—show that between August 1970 and August 1972 the price of cod fillets rose by 50·7 per cent. In August they were fetching 31·8p a lb. There was an increase in the price of haddock fillets of 36·4 per cent. and the price was 34·5p a lb. Smoked haddock went up by 36·1 per cent., plaice fillets by 27·5 per cent., halibut by 32·9 per cent.—which meant that it was fetching 60·6p a lb—herrings by 46·4 per cent., and kippers by 38·1 per cent. In view of that, the Minister should tell us how he intends to stop that trend because it is clear that there is nothing in the legislation on subsidies—operating subsidies, building subsidies or call them what we will—that will protect the consumer against price rises.
The figures are, of course, average figures throughout the whole of the country. My friends in the fishing industry in Aberdeen and further north tell me that the price of fish has never been so high and that they are facing great difficulties in buying fish on the quayside because of the cost. It would be ironic when the price of meat is rocketing—I was told last week that in Aberdeen the price of some cuts of meat were up as much as 10p a lb—if in the north-east of Scotland, home of the finest beef cattle in the world, people were unable to eat meat. If the situation continues the people in the north-east of Scotland, where the freshest and finest fish in the country is landed, will be unable to eat fish, and that would be a fitting epitaph for the Government.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I hope to be brief as other hon. Members have been brief, and I do not want to cover the whole subject as we did on the last discussion on fisheries. In any case, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes)


has already used the figures which I intended to argue about today. He rightly raised the point that we should sometimes stop and look at what is the function of the industry. It is not good enough to be told, as we were told by the Minister in August on the last occasion we discussed the subject, that it is a sufficient for the industry to be profitable. Of course we want the industry to be profitable and we want our fishermen to earn the maximum possible, but the fishermen would be the first to say that it is the people for whom they catch the fish that also matter. Therefore, my hon. Friend is right to say that in looking at the extension of the Act we have to relate it to the purpose and function of the industry, which is to provide our people with protein, with good food.
Therefore, it is unsatisfactory to get the kind of answer we received on the last occasion. I interrupted the Minister in the hope that I would get at least part of a statistical outline on which we could correlate these matters. I had to do a little correlation myself instead. With the mass of statistics, particularly the monthly statistics, we always wonder whether we understand the position correctly.
In replying to a similar point in our last debate, the Under-Secretary said of my speech:
His figures of consumption were of doubtful origin and not based on fact, he mixed up questions concerning the European Economic Community and he did not really understand the industry.
The hon. Gentleman was careful not to say how my figures were wrong. The only concrete example he gave was when he said:
One must be very careful not to confuse figures of earnings and figures of profit, to which my right hon. Friend rightly referred."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1972; Vol. 842, c. 517.]
Therefore, when we examine the hon. Gentleman's speech in the cold light of HANSARD, we find that his real anxiety was about his right hon. Friend's figures. Mine came from various Government publications, including the Department of Employment statistics and the family income and expenditure surveys.

Mr. Robert Hughes: During my speech I said that the profitability of the fleet

doubled in 10 years. In fact, the Minister's figures show that it doubled in three years.

Mr. Buchan: Which figures does my hon. Friend think to be correct—his own or the Minister's?

Mr. Hughes: The Minister's.

Mr. Buchan: The function of the industry is the first thing we must establish. That is why I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising the point so sharply. I shall deal with more figures later.
Of course, we welcome the Bill. We are always pleased to acknowledge it when the present Government recognise that we have done something good and want to continue it. At least they have done something useful in continuing some good legislation.
I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) paid tribute to Lord Hoy. My hon. Friend was very coy in referring to him as the previous Member for Edinburgh, Leith. My right hon. Friends the Members for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) and Workington (Mr. Peart) also worked when in office to bring about this form of support for the industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North was right to say that because of other changes in the Government's attitudes to food an undue proportion of costs is falling directly on the consumer rather than the taxpayer, because of the linking of the deep-water and middle-water subsidies with the economic formula. That can mean only, in line with the present Government's general policy, that the poor pay more. That is the real significance of the Government's agricultural policy and their general attitudes towards subsidies. They always force the poor to pay more, by shifting the burden on to the consumer. This can be spelled out in great detail. It is not just an abstract point but something very important that we must consider.
The industry increased its return in 1971. There was an expenditure of £243 million by customers in this country compared with £213 million in 1970. But despite that £30 million increase in expenditure the landings on which it was based


were down. There was a decrease in landings and consumption, but the cost went up, and as always in such a situation the poor suffered.
Between 1970 and 1972 there was a 19 per cent. increase in expenditure on fish compared with a drop of 4·4 per cent. in consumption. The poorer section of the community, those low wage earners with incomes of less than £17 a week, suffered a 14 per cent. drop in consumption in the second quarter of 1972 compared with the second quarter of 1970. The consumption of fish by pensioners dropped by 10 per cent. in the same period. Yet fish has always been regarded as one of the sources of a cheaper form of protein in place of beef. When the Government have forced beef prices through the ceiling, we find that pensioners and low wage earners are also cutting back on their fish consumption, a serious situation.
It makes us want to look again at the formula used. We must see whether it can be changed in a way that looks rather more towards Exchequer support and less to the consumer, because the present system means that the poor pay more, I had hoped that some of the facts might be brought out by the Minister. I hope that the Under-Secretary will not say in reply, as he did last time, that my figures are inaccurate If he does, I hope that he will show me how I have gone wrong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North gave specific figures, including the striking example of a 507 per cent. increase in the price of cod fillets between August 1970 and August 1972. We are haddock eaters in Scotland, and the people in England and Wales tend to be cod eaters. That means that in England and Wales particularly the cost of the basic fish consumed has doubled in two years. That fact must be considered along with what the Government are doing to beef prices. I shall not repeat the other figures that my hon. Friend gave.
General anxiety was expressed on both sides of the House about the continuation of the kind of assistance for which the Bill provides. It was expressed not only by those of us who might be seen as traditional anti-Marketeers but those of us who have been seen traditionally as pro-Marketeers. I am reminded of Dr.

Johnson's saying that the prospect of execution concentrates a man's mind wonderfully. I am interested in seeing just how many anxieties are developing about the Common Market as we come closer and closer to reality.
The Ministry's Press notice about the Bill says:
This extension of the enabling powers leaves open the question of their use after entry to the European Economic Community. This will depend upon the need to promote continued stability and prosperity in the industry, and the developing structural and marketing provisions of Community policy.
The Government are saying that they do not know what the future of the fishing industry, its various grants and supports, its structure, will be in the Common Market. We have bought a pig in a poke, and not only in regard to the general financing and structure. There are the marketing problems—

Mr. James Johnson: It is a fish in a poke.

Mr. Buchan: Along with chips, that is a very good place to be.
My own anxieties about the Common Market's policy of open access were expressed almost exactly a year ago. We have had no satisfaction on them yet. The Government did their best to sell Norway down the river. We were already putting pressure on the Norwegians to come to an agreement, but they—all honour to them—stuck out more doggedly than we did for the protection of their shores, in spite of the unfair pressure the Government put upon them. At the end of the day, the Norwegians decided that they did not want to join anyway.
We were told that one of the arguments for accepting the derogation until 1982 was that we should have the right to veto developments of Common Market policy. We exposed that, despite the assurances given by Ministers. All we can do if we attempt to use the veto is to allow the position to revert to what it is under the basic Common Market regulations.
We have no possibility of achieving anything if the other countries say "No". We were told that it would be not the Six but an extended Ten. Yet the biggest fishing country which would have been in support of this, Norway, will no longer


be there. Our arguments have been weakened and nothing has been protected. The Government's argument rested on the fact that, once inside the Community, we would be able to advance our own case. Our major ally—no doubt the Danes will be on our side—will no longer be there, following the Norwegian decision. So the guarantees and goodness knows what other vague declarations that we have had are no longer enough. We have less than two months before we enter the Community and clearly everyone wants a guarantee satisfaction.
We are also concerned about the future of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board. I am glad that the authority is also to come to Edinburgh. It is a beautiful city. We might not be able to beat the All Blacks as they did in Workington but we welcome the dispersal of civil servants to Scotland or to any other development area as a matter of general policy.
The important question is: what is the continuing future of these bodies? Have the Government considered their rôles once so many of their functions are taken over by producer organisations? We have had little guarantee on this and it must be as worrying to the staffs as any move.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) correctly argued the case for more information to be provided to fishermen. The Government ought to spell out more clearly the prospects and what they are doing to improve the guarantee of security.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the grants and loans for fishing vessels. The ten years of the derogation is a short period when considering the guarantees for the scheme.
Almost every speaker has mentioned the Iceland situation. I am slightly disturbed when I hear the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) referring to the use of the Royal Navy. I hope it is clear when such a comment is made that from this side of the House we are 'talking in terms of the protective rôle of the Navy. A good deal of understanding has been shown by all sides about the Icelandic problem. We understand the difficulties and agree with the Government Front Bench that the final sug-

gestions made by the Icelandic Government are not good enough.
This kind of cut in our potential catch cannot be accepted. Our aim should be to get the right kind of total catch arrangements that would square with the conservation objectives of the Icelandic people. This is their main concern and it must be ours. I hope that we shall be more than ready to continue negotiations after having had today the opportunity to express our views on both sides of the House.

6.25 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): We have had a useful and wide-ranging debate. It is always a great pleasure for me on these occasions to wind up the debate because this is a subject on which, although there may be differences on certain points such as fish prices, it is clear that everyone has the interests of the industry at heart. Party lines are cut across in these debates.
It will be helpful for those who have to take part in international negotiations on such matters to have behind them the united view of this House as well as the united views of the industry. On the external matters which may affect the future prosperity of the industry it is true to say that we are all united over the action which should be taken by the Government.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) and the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) raised a number of points about the price of fish and the effect on consumers. They were right to do so because any productive industry has two sides. We must consider those who buy the product as well as those who profit from their occupation in the industry. I will not go into the figures produced by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West although I must take exception to some of them. He referred to a doubling of the price because costs had gone up by 50 per cent. It is slightly slipshod phrases like that which mislead people. When the cost of fish goes up 50 per cent. it does not mean a doubling of prices. I am sure that it was a slip, but we are dealing with an emotive subject and I hope that we can deal with it responsibly.

Mr. Buchan: I am glad that after four months the hon. Gentleman has managed to find one flaw in my statistics. I should not have said that it was a doubling of the price; it is up by 50 per cent.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Such flaws are not difficult to find.
Hon. Gentlemen must remember that fish prices started from a relatively low level. They were particularly low in the period 1967–70. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North should bear in mind when making his comparisons that when doing so he is using a very low price period. My contacts in the industry felt that the kind of prices they were getting then did not reflect the effort they were putting into what is a dangerous occupation.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I hope the hon. Gentleman is not saying that I am suggesting that the amount of money going to producers should be cut. That is not my argument. My argument is that while this goes on the consumer should be protected.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I accept that. I was trying to put it into perspective so that there should be no mistake. Hon. Gentlemen must also remember that there is this built-in enabling factor. When prosperity increases in the deep-sea industry the Treasury commitment is affected. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West is honest about this. He said that in such circumstances he might have thought again about looking at the mechanics of the scheme, and that is a fair point.
The Government are conscious that the less-well-off have to bear higher costs. That is why we increased pensions and why today, in terms of buying power, pensions are higher than ever before. Hon. Gentlemen must pay attention to what the Government are doing to help those sections of the community about whom we spoke. We have gone out of our way through direct Government action to help those who may be affected by higher prices.
The hon. Gentleman was wrong when he said that the Government put beef prices through the ceiling. It was not the present Government. If it was anything it was the failure of the agricultural policies pursued by the hon. Gentleman's Government. The Labour Government

failed to give the beef industry the financial support it needed, so that in a period of world shortage there was insufficient home production to meet demand; that was of course related to the world situation.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? It is true that many aspects of the Price Reviews introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) and myself between 1964 and 1970 were criticised by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, but what was never criticised and was accepted as a favourable part of our reviews was the increased guarantees for beef.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I accept that the right hon. Gentleman increased the guarantees on beef, but through many of their other policies the Labour Government failed to get the confidence of the industry; it is not just a question of prices.
To return to fish, the debate has been marked by its international context. I will deal in more detail later with the EEC, but in passing I will mention Iceland. There is not much I can add to what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. I emphasise one point which should be helpful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson). The Government have full support in what they are doing from the fishing industry, particularly at Humber-side. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and my noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs consulted the Joint Action Committee of the fishing industry on 24th November, before going to Iceland. Two members of the industry, Mr. Charles Hudson, President of the BTF and Mr. Dave Shenton, Regional Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union, accompanied the delegation to Iceland. I put on record our gratitude to those representatives for the help and support they have given throughout the negotiations.
I cannot emphasise too much that the' door is still open. The British Government have not withdrawn from the negotiations. The door is open for the Icelandic Government to come back, and they know where we stand.

Mr. James Johnson: The Icelandic Government have not withdrawn. They say that they have asked to study our proposals. Is not that so?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is correct. There has been a suspension of the negotiations rather than withdrawal. I repeat, the door is open for them to come back.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) raised the question of the Law of the Sea, and I agree with what he said. It is the Government's wish that every fishing nation shall take part in the conference that is being arranged under United Nations auspices. I hope that all countries will co-operate in reaching agreement. We shall be playing a full part in that conference, which is of far-reaching importance to the fishing industry throughout the world.
The right hon. Member for Working-ton (Mr. Peart) mentioned Northern Ireland. I confirm that there are separate loan arrangements in Northern Ireland, but the subsidy is the same as it is for the remainder of the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) raised the general question of industrial fishing and conservation. I have had correspondence and, in the last few days, discussions on this question. The right hon. Gentleman is right. We must at all times be mindful of conservation. In a Scottish context I should be delighted for him to visit our laboratory in Aberdeen which monitors stocks. Shortly after I took office I paid the laboratory a visit and I was fascinated to see the work that was being done. It helped me to a much greater understanding of the problem. I see the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North indicating his agreement; I hope he has availed himself of the opportunity to make a visit. I shall be pleased to arrange for any hon. Member to visit the laboratory to see the work that is being done there.
Both nationally and internationally more concern about and interest in industrial fishing are now being shown. The United Kingdom Government certainly play their part in keeping industrial fishing under review, and we shall not hesitate to introduce measures to control this form of fishing should they be necessary.

Mr. Buchan: The Minister has mentioned industrial fishing. Will he comment on possible fishing off the west coast of the Outer Hebrides and its relationship to Common Market boundaries?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I do not see the relevance of that question to industrial fishing. The west coast of the Outer Hebrides is not more at risk from industrial fishing than is any other area.
Fish farming—which was referred to by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland—has been included in the research programme of the White Fish Authority. Research has been carried on into farming marine species, not rainbow trout, at Ardtoe in Argyll. Progress has been made but the stage of commercial development has not yet been reached. The authority will keep industry informed of progress. Representatives of industry are members of the WFA Committee which advises on research and development, so there is opportunity for information to be fed back.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward), in her usual independent spirit and not wishing to let any opportunity pass, raised several questions. I am sure she will forgive me if I am unable to reply to them in detail. I will bring them to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends whose concern they are. From inquiries I have made this evening, I can tell my hon. Friend that the Port of Tyne Authority, like other harbour authorities, is charged by Parliament under Statute with a range of duties inside its harbour limits. After listening to my hon. Friend's strictures of the Minister for Transport Industries I hesitate to confirm the position. It is for him to say whether the Government have powers to intervene.

Dame Irene Ward: Yes, but surely the Port of Tyne Authority is not charged with not providing sufficient moorings for Cobles and proper moorings for the trawler fleet. That cannot be laid down in an Act of Parliament. If it is, I had better get it removed as quickly as I can.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My understanding is that the provision of such facilities is one of the functions of a harbour authority if it is properly constituted. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.
The Port of Tyne Authority has been offered a 60 per cent. grant towards new works, provided that a scheme is agreed between the industry and the harbour authority, provided that the scheme is put up to the Minister before May next year and provided that it is started within 12 months of the original announcement last May. I hope that will put my hon. Friend's mind partly at rest. The grant goes to the authority because it is the authority which must carry out the work and pay the builder for it. The fishing industry is benefiting from this, although the matter of harbour dues may have to be looked at in helping to pay the other 40 per cent.
The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) raised a number of points and I, like other hon. Members, pay tribute to him for the part he played in bringing the parent legislation which the Bill seeks to extend. The right hon. Gentleman raised points about the EEC and the White Fish Authority. His main points related to the future of the industry within the Community and in particular to the position of our operating subsidies and other subsidies. I must emphasise that we shall be negotiating on these matters from within the Community. These matters have not been decided, and when they come up for decision we shall be able to play our full part in the negotiations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) mentioned grading and the withdrawal price system. Grading is a matter which gives great concern to the industry because of the multiplication involved and the suitability of such grades as applied to our industry. We are consulting our industry about it and we believe that practical common sense will prevail. We are not pessimistic about finding the correct answer.
I entirely agree that the question of the withdrawal price system and the question of limits are of vital importance. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland also referred to this topic. It could have a terrible effect on our industry and it must be pointed out that in a strange way—and this is not always appreciated in the industry—if the intervention price is too high, we might find first-grade fish from Shetland being taken

off the market at an intervention price, thus denying the processing industry and also consumers of the quality of fish to which they have become accustomed.
The implementation of the Common Market regulations following our negotiations for entry are still being worked out and we are in close touch with the industry. However, I must point out that our difficulties were accepted during the negotiations, and I feel sure that a solution can be found on the lines of some form of regionalisation of withdrawal prices.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland also mentioned financial aid for producers' organisation and related it to the money which the Bill seeks approval to spend. The items covered in the Bill refer to domestic support measures and not to measures of a Common Market nature. As my right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned in opening this debate, the establishment of producers' organisations will introduce a new element in our policy in the Common Market regarding common fishing. The question of financial arrangements must be a separate matter to be covered by the EEC regulations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) and others mentioned operating subsidies after 1st August, 1973. At this stage I cannot make any statement about the decisions that are likely to be taken on the payment of such subsidies after 31st July. Before that date we shall review the situation with the two sections of the industry concerned, and we shall take fully into account the usual criteria of profits, economic prospects and developments which may take place within the Community.
My hon. Friend also asked about the type of financial assistance which might be available to the industry in future after our entry into the Community. The EEC has not yet drawn up common rules on financial assistance in the fisheries sector and we shall be taking part in those discussions. What matters to us is that when those rules are drawn up our present form of grant and loan assistance will continue. Recently, because of the increased profit levels, the operating subsidies have been of relatively


less importance for the industry. Nevertheless, this matter will be much in our minds in any negotiations.
I wish to correct my hon. Friend on one point. He mentioned—perhaps I did not fully follow the point—100 per cent. reimbursement from FEOGA in withdrawing fish from the market. In case there was any misapprehension about this matter, I should point out that the way in which FEOGA will contribute to the rates will vary according to species of fish and it will work out at around 60 per cent. Our own producer organisations will have to meet the other costs from their own equalisation funds. I hope I have given hon. Members the information on these topics which they require.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked what steps we were taking to inform the industry about what was happening in the Community. We have been active in keeping in close touch with the industry, particularly the inshore fishing industry, in terms of the EEC. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I personally met the fishery organisations in both Orkney and Shetland about six weeks ago, so that I hope that those in his constituency are fully informed on these matters. We intend to continue the consultations, and even today officers of my Department are in Edinburgh meeting representatives of the processing side of the industry to discuss the impact of any EEC arrangements upon them.
I turn to the last main area which has been dealt with in the debate—the question of the White Fish Authority, its future in the EEC and indeed its future in general. There are certain functions which are at present exercised by the authority and the Herring Industry Board which could continue under the EEC. One particular function relates to research and development. Another function which should continue is the use of the White Fish Authority as a vehicle for the collection of funds for the industry in financing industrial contributions for research and development; and there are one or two other functions involved.
I should like to deal with the questions which have been raised on the statement made earlier in the year about waiting for perhaps a period of five years to see how things will develop in terms of pro-

ducers' organisations. Under the EEC rules the operation of the withdrawal price system depends on the establishment of producers' organisations. This refers strictly to producers' organisations—and I must emphasise that neither the Authority nor the Board is a producers' organisation. It is in respect of this function of the Authority that the rôle of the producers' organisations must be taken into account. It is in this respect that we must consider their future.
I wish to reaffirm what my right hon. Friend said in the summer of this year—namely, that we believe that the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board have an important rôle in helping the industry to adjust to the new situation within the Common Market. Both these organisations have been of great assistance to the industry already in helping it to adjust to the new situation which is likely to prevail.
Several other questions not directly connected with the EEC were raised regarding the future of the two authorities. The right hon. Member for Workington asked about the staff and in particular whether some of the staff might find employment in my right hon. Friend's Department. I am not aware of any individual approaches having been made from members of the WFA staff for employment in the Ministry, but the position remains as it was stated in the letter which my right hon. Friend sent to the right hon. Gentleman, and if any requests were received they would be considered. I cannot at this stage give a categorical assurance on how matters would work out in relation to any individual.
The right hon. Member for Anglesey referred to the possible consequences of moving the headquarters to Edinburgh. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was a little pessimistic about the move and its implications for the industry in England and Wales. It should be remembered that the authority itself wished to move out of London. There was the question of higher costs in London as well as—I know that the right hon. Gentleman supports this, as I do—the question of dispersing public offices out of London. We shall give careful consideration to the position of staff in these circumstances. One realises that


any policy of dispersal involves a human element, and we shall watch the position closely.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Could the hon. Gentleman give the proportion of the present staff who will move to Edinburgh and the proportion who will move out of the employ of the White Fish Authority and look for work elsewhere?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I could not answer the right hon. Gentleman without notice. I shall look into the present position and write to him explaining how matters will rest, so far as that may be known.
I apologise for a somewhat piecemeal reply to the debate, but there have been many questions raised on a variety of topics. I turn now to the present economic position of the industry. Earnings have been steadily rising over recent years. In 1970 total landings in the United Kingdom by British vessels were £76 million. Last year they were £93 million. We expect them to exceed £100 million this year. These are tremendous achievements and they have been reflected in the profits of the fleet. Deep sea profits in 1971 were about £7 million, compared with just under £5 million in 1970. We are still waiting for the 1972 results and it is as yet difficult to forecast what the position will be, but there seems to be little reason to expect profits to have fallen.
As the House will recall, our debate on the inshore and herring subsidies last year took place against a background of substantially increased profits, particularly in the Scottish fleet. I think that the prosperity of the industry today is best reflected in the confidence which it is showing in investing in new vessels. This is, I believe, the best measure we can have of the view which the industry takes of its future. Here are the figures regarding the number of applications to the statutory bodies for grant and loan assistance in building new vessels. In the last financial year, applications in respect of 157 new inshore and nine new deep sea vessels were approved. That is to be compared with 89 inshore and 18 deep sea applications approved in the previous year. In the first six months of this year, however—I emphasise that it is only the first six months—applications

in respect of 110 inshore and 11 deep sea vessels have been approved. It is against that background of the confidence which the industry has in itself that the Bill should be considered.
It gives me great pleasure to commend the Bill to the House. The Government are extending the means at their disposal to assist the industry and the industry has shown by its record that it is confident in itself and in the Government by investing its own money, backing success with success.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — SEA FISH INDUSTRY [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to relax certain time limits under the Sea Fish Industry Act 1970, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) any increase that may result from the repeal of section 49(4) of the Act of 1970 in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under that section (white fish and herring subsidies) or under section 51 of that Act (reimbursement of Isle of Man herring subsidies); and
(2) any increase that may result from the extension of the time limits under sections 22(1), 23(1), 35(1) and 36(1) of the Act of 1970 in the amounts payable out of moneys provided by Parliament, or payable into the Consolidated Fund, in respect of Exchequer loans or grants to the White Fish Authority or the Herring Industry Board; and
(3) the extension of the period during which under section 24(2) or 37(2) of the Act of 1970 repayments of certain Exchequer loans are to be paid into the White Fish Marketing Fund or the Herring Marketing Fund.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

ARMY, AIR FORCE AND NAVAL DISCIPLINE ACTS

6.55 p.m.

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Ian Gilmour): I beg to move,
That the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 31st October, be approved.
The House will have observed that, for the first time, it is being invited to approve a single annual order which provides for the continuation of all three Service discipline Acts. Until the Armed Forces Act 1971 came into force on 1st July this year, the Navy was governed by a permanent statute, the Naval Discipline Act. By contrast, the Army and Air Force Acts have, since 1955, been quinquennial Acts which have to be renewed annually by affirmative resolution of both Houses.
When the 1966 Armed Forces Bill was considered, this arrangement led to mild parliamentary criticism and it had, therefore, to be decided whether to bring all three Services into line, and, if so, how to do this. We concluded that we should retain the long-established tradition whereby, for nearly 300 years in the case of the Army and since its formation in the case of the Royal Air Force, their code of discipline and constitutional structure has been subject to the annual approval of Parliament. We therefore decided to bring the Naval Discipline Act into line with the Acts for the other two Services and made necessary provision in the Armed Forces Act 1971. The result is the single order covering all three Services which is now before the House.
I am sure that the House will wish me to say something about the people whom the order concerns in the three Services. I turn first to the Army and in particular—almost inevitably in a debate of this kind—to its discipline in Northern Ireland. I refer directly to its discipline, because I know Mr. Speaker has said that this debate is extremely narrow, relating to the discipline of the Armed Forces. Much has been said in the House and in the country as a whole on this subject, and I scarcely need to assure the House that the standards of discipline and morale in the Army remain impressively high. Indeed the overall rate of disciplinary

offences has dropped appreciably since the middle of 1971.
The House will, I know, wish me to take this opportunity to pay a special tribute to the manner in which the Army continues to do its job in Northern Ireland. I doubt that any other army in the world would have discharged its duties for so long in so provocative and delicate a situation with so much patience and restraint. The conduct, discipline and morale of the troops deserves the highest praise.
I think I should say a few words about the statement issued last week by a number of priests—exactly how many seems rather obscure—from Catholic areas in Belfast alleging widespread brutality and harassment by the Army. The Army's task is to uphold law and order and protect all sections of the community from terrorism and violence of all kinds; and troops do not open fire except to protect themselves and others when life is being endangered by terrorist action. Any suggestion that the Army sets out to shoot unarmed civilians of the community in Northern Ireland is absurd and totally false.
It is worth emphasising too that the allegations of brutality, harassment and victimisation which are made should be looked at against the backcloth of a deliberate campaign which is being conducted by the IRA and other extremists to discredit the behaviour and discipline of the security forces. The campaign sets out to gain the fullest possible publicity for any allegations against the Army, however distorted or incredible they may be—indeed, the more distorted and incredible the better.
Clearly, whilst terrorism persists there is a need for soldiers to check people's identity and to search for arms and explosives. In this they have had considerable success. But such results cannot be achieved without some inconvenience to peaceful people. In hunting down the gunmen and the bombers the security forces will continue to make every possible effort to cause the least possible hardship and inconvenience to the public.
Any specific complaint of unlawful behaviour by troops which is supported by a statement or other form of evidence is referred to the civil authorities for investigation. The Army gives all


possible assistance to the civil authorities in their investigations.
In addition the Army is most ready to develop a dialogue with representative community leaders. Among the broad allegations by the group of priests in Belfast was one of lack of approachability and co-operation on the part of the Army. Yet the Army has always been fully alive to the absolute necessity for a closer link with the civil community. It does its best to encourage those with complaints to discuss them with the Army, which often produces useful results.
In a few cases complaints have been found to be justified after investigation and the soldiers involved have been brought before the courts. It is regrettable that even isolated instances of bad behaviour should occur but understandable in view of the considerable provocation to which the troops have been subjected in carrying out their difficult duties. The troops as a whole must be strongly commended for the tact and restraint which they have shown and continue to show in trying circumstances.
As I explained, the Royal Navy now comes within the scope of this annual debate for the first time. My noble Friend drew attention in another place to the Committee on Naval Welfare under the chairmanship of Lord Seebohm which has been set up to review welfare provisions for Royal Navy and Royal Marine personnel and their families, including, in the light of problems created by service conditions, ways of anticipating and preventing social difficulties, which have an important bearing on discipline and morale. I echo my noble Friend's confidence in the existing Navy Family Welfare Organisation. But I believe that the outcome of this study in depth will ensure that we are not left behind by the general advances of welfare services.
I should mention the catering fraud while talking about the Royal Navy. As I announced on 20th November, we are setting up an independent inquiry into these matters. The main object of the inquiry is to ensure that the systems of financial and stock control in the service catering organisations are as foolproof as it is possible to make them against

the sort of malpractices that have given rise to the recent criminal cases.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I have been listening carefully to what he has to say. I am sure that it would not be his wish to be out of order, but he is sailing a little close to the wind at the moment. Perhaps I should read the ruling as it has been made on several occasions in past debates of this kind. It is as follows:
We are debating on this Order whether the Army Act should be renewed for one year. The only speeches which are in order are those which advocate that the Army Act"—
and the Navy and the Air Force in this case—
should be renewed for one year or should not be renewed for one year, giving reasons in the Act why it should or should not be renewed. This debate is very narrow".
Mr. Speaker went on to say:
It may have been broadened"—
he was referring to an occasion in the past—
but the right hon. Gentleman is right in assuming that to raise other matters would not be in order."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1965; Vol. 722, c. 972–3.]
In 1970 Mr. Speaker said:
… I should have to confine the debate on the Army Motions and that on the Royal Air Force Motion within very strict narrow limits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1970; Vol. 806, c. 1452.]

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order. It is not my normal rôle to help Ministers on points of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, what the Minister was saying was directly related to Sections 38 and 42 of the Armed Forces Act 1971, which we are discussing. If this is to be a useful debate, some hon. Members may wish to raise points that arise from what the Minister has been saying.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Provided the hon. Gentleman adheres to the Act, I am sure he will be in order. I felt that it would be better to say something now rather than to let matters go on and perhaps get very badly out of order.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: On a point of order. It has been regarded for many hundreds of years that this debate is one of the


opportunities for the House to exercise its control over the Armed Forces. It is difficult to understand how that can be done unless we assume, as it has been assumed in the past, that matters concerning pay, conditions, recruitment and terms of engagement are related to discipline.
I hesitate to quote "Erskine May", but there is a quotation on page 729, which deals with the procedure of debate after the 1955 amalgamation of the two Acts, which makes it clear that this should be an opportunity for parliamentary control. I do not know how that is possible if the sort of speech which the Minister has begun to make is not in order.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Further to that point of order. May I respectfully point out that only last week the other place was able to debate the very matters which my hon. Friend was bringing before the House? It is the duty of this House—and, indeed, its onus—to debate the matters which my hon. Friend was bringing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to your attention.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to see that the rulings of the Chair are carried out to the best of my ability. I felt that it was my duty to point out how I felt the rulings of the Chair should be interpreted. I am sure I can leave it to the good sense of the hon. Gentleman and that of the House to keep the matter within bounds.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House will be relieved to hear that I have truncated my speech a good deal to bring myself somewhere near the rules of order.
I was talking about the distasteful subject of the catering fraud, which I feel must unfortunately be closely related to discipline in the Armed Forces. My right hon. and noble Friend has agreed provisional terms of reference for the inquiry into the catering of all three Services. However, lie would like to discuss them with the chairman of the proposed committee before they are published. We hope to announce shortly the names of the chairman and the members of the committee to undertake the inquiry.

Mr. Dalyell: As the Minister knows, I represent South Queensferry, in part of which is Port Edgar and the Royal Elizabeth Yard at Kirkliston. Could it be made clear while the inquiry is proceeding that there is no assumption that the many establishments within Navy discipline have in any way indulged in malpractice? To put it bluntly there are some people, who have been honest throughout their lives, who are feeling a little sore that they are being tarred with a broad brush. It is not the fault of the Ministry. Nevertheless the Press publicity is a bit hard on those against whom no malpractice can be alleged and who one imagines have been honest for many years.

Mr. Gilmour: I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I was about to make a similar point and I hope the House will forgive me if I make it, because I think it is very important for both Government and Parliament to place on record that we have great confidence in the overwhelming majority of the members of the Royal Navy, who have great pride in their past and look forward with great confidence to the future. I am sure that neither the House nor the country as a whole will be misled by the actions of a tiny minority into having a lesser opinion of the Services in general and their standards and reputation. That applies to the hon. Gentleman's constituents as well as to those in all other naval establishments.

Mr. Dalyell: What is the time scale of these inquiries?

Mr. Gilmour: It is difficult to answer that question with any degree of clarity. I cannot give such information until the members have been appointed and the terms of reference have been published, but obviously it is in everyone's interest to do this job as quickly as possible. But it will depend on the convenience and activities of those taking part.
I turn now to the Royal Air Force—with some trepidation. My noble Friend last week outlined the difficulties we are having in achieving the right balance between expenditure on men and on other things. An economy programme in two successive phases has been put under way. In view of your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not dwell on that, but as


it was mentioned by my noble Friend in another place perhaps I might be permitted to say briefly that a detailed study in headquarters and in all commands to try to get existing jobs done with fewer staff produced considerable savings in the numbers of officers, airmen and civilians required. In the second phase, which is not yet complete, ideas for changes in the task and organisation of the Royal Air Force were invited and as a result the whole structure is being examined in detail.
Finally, after another considerable piece of truncation, I would like briefly to mention recruitment and re-engagement. The factors which cause both recruitment and re-engagement are complex, but one of the most important is what people think is the Government's attitude towards the Services and it is significant that in the context of the stable defence policy we have pursued since we took office satisfactory levels of recruitment and re-engagement have been achieved. This is also illustrated by the fact that, despite the problems I have outlined, morale and discipline in the Services remain high, and that is something for which we can all be grateful.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: All of us are in some difficulty on this first occasion of debating the amalgamated discipline Acts. Therefore, like the Minister of State, I shall make only part of the speech I would otherwise have made. So the House has at least one reason to be grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that I remain in order if I begin with a very necessary comment on the procedure adopted for the submission of this order. Two weeks ago today, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition explained the view of the Opposition that for very good constitutional reasons the order should have originated in this House and not in the other place.

Mr. Gilmour: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so early, but he is under some misapprehension as between the order and the Act. There is nothing new about the order being moved first in another place. It was moved there

under the Labour Government in 1967 and 1968.

Mr. Hattersley: The difference is that this is a new order. We are talking about a totally new set of events, in that we are discussing naval discipline for the first time in these circumstances. The subject of naval discipline has never been started in another place. We regard this order, therefore, as we do the parent Act, as an opportunity to exercise constitutional control which the House of Commons should have over the Armed Forces.
It was not simply constitutional propriety which led us to believe that the order should have been introduced here first. There are sound constitutional precedents. They came not only from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) when we debated the Bill but also from the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden). They both discussed this very point. We believe also that there is a more practical and perhaps in a sense more contemporary reason why the order should have originated here. It concerns what I must with reluctance describe as the "devaluation" of the defence debates in the House of Commons over the last two years, as witnessed by the hour and by the day and therefore by the numbers of people who now take part in that kind of debate.
In direct relation to the presentation of this order, there is a strong and resentful feeling on this side of the House that at no time in the last two decades has there been less defence information supplied to the House than during the last two years. It is no coincidence that the situation was much better in those two decades in the period between the then Minister of Defence being in the House of Lords and the present Secretary of State being in the House of Lords. There is considerable deficiency of defence information coming our way and we regard the fact that the order began in another place as indicative and symptomatic of that fact.
Our complaint about the paucity of defence information coming to the House is underlined by the procedure laid down for the order. The core of the complaint is not that the House of Lords is getting information first and we are getting it second—that would be a trivial complaint—but that under this procedure no one is


getting information at all. That is the main complaint.
I draw an example from the other place's debate on this order. There, the Secretary of State said—and got away with it—that this was a traditional opportunity for discussing personnel matters in Parliament. He made two speeches, the first lasting 13 minutes and the second six minutes. In them he produced three sets of figures for the House of Lords. He was able to tell it the number of school leavers in 1973; he told of the increase in unemployment in 1966; and he gave a number of figures for RAF redundancy which had been leaked to the newspapers a few days earlier.
If, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you allow us to pursue matters raised by the Minister of State, we hope to have more precise and adequate answers than those offered by the Secretary of State in another place, and we have a number of questions on a number of the topics which the hon. Gentleman has explored and which I therefore assume one is in order in pursuing.
The first point concerns recruiting, and therefore, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and realising that in this area we all proceed with some difficulty on thin ice, I have a number of questions which will enable the hon. Gentleman to explain certain things which are apparently within the terms of the order. In the Defence White Paper of last April, the Government warned the House and the country that there would be an inevitable reduction in the number of men coming forward for service in the Armed Forces. A series of figures suggested that in each of the three services recruitment is in decline. In the Royal Air Force, where it is explained that there are special reasons for limiting the recruitment figures, recruitment almost halved in the last three quarters of 1971 compared with the last three quarters of the preceding year. In the case of the Army, the figures in the last two quarters were smaller than in the last two quarters of the previous year. The position in relation to the Royal Navy is almost exactly the same. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us whether the fall-off in recruitment is what he expected but has arrived earlier than expected, or whether the fall is more drastic than was expected.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Lord Lambton): I want to put the hon. Gentleman right. The lowness of Royal Air Force recruiting is intentional. We are striving to get fewer but better people at this time so that the teeth are stronger.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Does all this relate to the Discipline Act? As far as I can see, recruitment is not a question of discipline.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we return to this question? If Bills are to start their life in the House of Lords—[Interruption.]—and we then find that the Lords are lax but that in this House the Chair in its wisdom applies much stricter rules, surely it is a matter of the goose and the gander.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought I had explained the position to the House. I quite see how aggravating this situation is. But I have read to the House the rulings of Mr. Speaker, and we are bound by them. If I think that hon. Members are going beyond the terms of those rulings, I have to point it out. What happens in the other place is no concern of ours. That is why we call it "another place".

Mr. Dalyell: Without wishing in any way to be impertinent, are there no "usual channels" between Mr. Speaker and the Lord Chancellor?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If there were, it would not be proper for me to talk about them from the Chair.

Mr. Hattersley: I shall not pursue my questions on recruiting, though, as a matter of Ministry of Defence experience rather than as a matter of parliamentary procedure, I suspect that discipline and recruiting are directly related and that, by implication, it is very difficult to discuss one without discussing the other.
I appreciate that there were special reasons for the Royal Air Force recruiting at a small level. That was a matter of intention. But that is not the position with regard to the other two Services. Therefore, if possible I should like to know whether the fall-off in recruiting which was anticipated is moving at about the speed and at about the rate anticipated.
I turn now to a subject which, though related to recruiting, is palpably related to discipline, because it is related to morale. It concerns the pay of Her Majesty's Forces. The Minister of State will recall that the Pay Review Body set up by his Government reported in April and in the last paragraph of its report both summarised the present pay position and made suggestions about the future. It said that between the military salary and now the average pay increase in Her Majesty's Forces was about 9 per cent. For adult men it was rather less—about 7 per cent. It went on to say that if an increase is postponed more than a few months or a year the average increase will decline proportionately as the postponement goes on.
Let me draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to two points specific to the Pay Review Body and therefore directly concerned with morale and therefore discipline. The Pay Review Body said that if pay increases in civilian employment were to continue at a high level it would be a matter of injustice to Her Majesty's Forces were Government policy of a pay review every two years rather than every year to be adhered to strictly. It said that not only would it be a matter of injustice to Her Majesty's Forces but that the Pay Review Body, should it think it right, would feel free to make a recommendation after one year—in April 1973.
Two questions arise which were not only allowed as being in order in another place but which are, since they are concerned with the prospect of pay, involving service morale and discipline. The first is this. Can we be absolutely assured that what the Pay Review Body described as its freedom to make an interim report at the end of one year rather than two will not be impaired by the Government, incomes policy notwithstanding, that the Pay Review Body will not be subject to pressure not to make an interim report, and that if a report is made it will be implemented? In another place, the Secretary of State gave an answer which, to do it all justice possible, was less than precise. I hope that the Minister of State will give an answer of staggering precision when he winds up the debate.
Secondly, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say something about the future of the pay structure of the Armed Forces, and not simply about a review which might come out in April. There is a feeling which has an influence on morale and discipline that in a time of decreasing real funds being available to defence some provision should be made to make sure that getting the Armed Forces into line with civilian employment which was done with some success in April 1970 will be maintained.
I turn to the next point which I can discover that it is possible to argue is related to discipline. It involves re-engagement rates in the Armed Forces. As I understand it, there is a direct and obvious connection between discipline, morale and re-engagement, and there is an obvious connection between all those and the level of the Armed Forces in the future.
Looking at the re-engagement rates in all the Armed Forces, comparing 1971 with 1970, in almost every category of recruitment re-engagement improved over the second year as compared with the first. There were 19 possible categories of recruitment. In 1972 there were more re-engagements in 17 of them than in the previous year. That is a spectacularly successful figure. But looking at the few months' figures available for this year, re-engagement rates have deteriorated as compared with the full year 1971. When the Minister of State replies, could he comment on the re-engagement rates in all the Armed Forces and say whether he is worried about the willingness or reluctance of Servicemen to sign on for a second term, and whether there are categories in which there is a problem.
I am in part referring to the problems raised by short-term service. The Government of which I was a member instituted a short period of service in the Royal Navy. Again, looking at the figures, without wearying the House by quoting them, I see that in all three Services there has been an increase in the number of men signing on for the shortest possible time and a decrease in the number signing on for longer periods. If that is the case and improved recruiting is strictly related to shorter engagements, the re-engagement rate is a crucial factor in terms of the size of the Army, Navy


and Air Force in 10 years' time. Can the Minister relate recruiting, re-engagement rates and length of service and tell us what he thinks estimated strength will be in 10 years or even in five years compared with the need for men and the service that they have to perform?
I make two comments about Northern Ireland. I want first to echo the tribute paid by the Minister of State not simply to the discipline but to the morale and the courage of the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland. I was last with the Army in Northern Ireland on the day before Operation Motorman. It was a period of maximum depression for the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland, if maximum depression there was. Even on that day, when there was certainly a feeling that there were areas of Northern Ireland into which the Army could not go but into which it ought to be allowed to go, the spirit of the troops, their understanding of the problems of politicians striving for a political settlement, their willingness to take risks on behalf of politicians striving for a political settlement, their devotion to their task and their extraordinary acceptance of the obligations of their uniquely unpleasant task were a privilege to witness. On behalf of the Opposition I pay my own tribute to what was done and what continues to be done in Northern Ireland by all the Armed Forces who serve there.
I want also to make a point about complaints and about how those complaints should be processed. As the Minister of State said, it is inevitable that from time to time there will be complaints about the conduct of individual soldiers or units. I suppose that it is equally inevitable after two and a half years that occasionally those complaints are justified. I believe that it is very much in the interests of the Armed Forces that whenever a complaint is made, no matter how apparently frivolous, no matter how apparently malicious, same sort of inquiry is made into it. The Army in Northern Ireland, not with great enthusiasm, is performing a task which is basically a policing function in intolerable circumstances.
The civilian police are inevitably subject to complaints of one kind or another, some frivolous, some malicious, and occasionally justified. They have learned

that the best way of combating those complaints and preserving the good name of the police force is to treat them all with a degree of seriousness and to refute the overwhelming majority which can be refuted.
Therefore, I hope that when from time to time the Opposition, who, like the hon. Gentleman, admire what the Army is doing in Northern Ireland, suggest to him that this or that complaint ought to be treated with a degree of seriousness, he will understand that we do so because we believe it to be in the interests of the forces that matters should not be swept under the carpet, but should be investigated and usually disproved. I say that, as I said at the beginning, in the light of the Opposition's continued admiration for what our forces are doing in Northern Ireland and in order that their morale and discipline may remain as high as it is.
We know that all these personnel matters, which are traditionally debated on this day, have in some way a relationship with the performance of the forces in the field. The things I have said and want to know about recruiting are related not only to pay and conditions of service, but to the esteem with which the Services are held in the public mind. No greater tribute can be paid to the way our forces have performed in Northern Ireland than that the increases in recruitment have been coincidental with the period of severest strain which shows that the tribute which the hon. Gentleman and I have paid to our forces in Northern Ireland is echoed by most families in England.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1972.
2. Pensioners and Family Income Supplement Payments Act, 1972.
3. Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation Act, 1972.
4. Scrabster Harbour (Vehicle Ferry Terminal &amp;c.) Order Confirmation Act, 1972.

ARMY, AIR FORCE AND NAVAL DISCIPLINE ACTS

7.32 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: From these crowded benches this evening I hope I shall manage to remain in order if I start by saying that I believe these Acts should be continued.
The discipline of the Armed Forces is central to the splendid reputation of the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force. We should pause to note that this reputation is particularly valuable to this country when some of our allies, even within NATO, have conscript forces whose discipline does not reach the high standards which our Regular volunteer forces achieve.
Again relative to order, discipline does not come from an Act of Parliament; it comes only from a high state of morale, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) mentioned.
I should like to mention one or two points affecting morale. First, the military salary—all tribute to the Labour Government for introducing it—seems to be good. It may be said that soldiers and sailors are now properly paid, perhaps for the first time in centuries.
Leave and welfare arrangements are good. This morning I telephoned the Royal Green Jackets in Winchester to discover whether there were any difficulties about men on leave from Ulster flying to rejoin their families living in Germany. I understand that generally the arrangements are satisfactory.
It goes without saying that the officers and men in all the Services are most conscientious and idealistic about their jobs. Otherwise they would not work all the hours God made in the way they do, under conditions which would astonish most civilians.
To maintain morale it is absolutely necessary that the forces should have the weapons and equipment which they, as professionals, know they need.
I turn now to the Royal Navy. I am glad to see the new First Lord in his place. One thing which any naval man knows is that the principal task of the Royal Navy is to protect our trade. It was, is and always will be. Our trade is world-wide, but arrangements for its pro-

tection only even pretend to be adequate within the NATO area as defined.
It is a sad fact that the present Government have done very little to improve the state of affairs since the Labour Government changed their policy from the 1966 White Paper in which the definitive sentence was that
No country with a sense of international responsibility would abandon its commitment east of Suez",
and so on, to the 1967 White Paper where it was all scuttle, all come home, leave the Gulf and so on.
Specifically the morale of the Royal Navy—I was just going amidships, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is very much hazarded by the lack of proper arrangements for air support at sea. My hon. Friend the Minister of State's answer to me at Question Time today about Harriers is as vivid an example as I can give of the fact that there are not sufficient arrangements for air support at sea.
Recruiting is marvellously good, but for heaven's sake let us keep it that way. One thing which has always worried me about recruiting is that the Royal Navy has largely depended in the past on the 15-year-old entrants to HMS "Ganges". Many ratings have been recruited as 15year-olds. Their discipline and morale have been fine. They have made a splendid leavening throughout the Service. The Donaldson Report on Boy Entrants and Young Servicemen makes the point in paragraph 8 that
The Services should be seen as a tine career which a boy is lucky to get into, not as a second best to industry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I gather that there has been difficulty in the debate earlier. I should emphasise that the debate should be extremely narrow. It seems to have exceeded its bounds considerably.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I will of course abide by your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am doing my utmost to keep purely to discipline and morale subjects, but it is difficult to separate morale from discipline.
The morale of our soldiers in Ulster is wonderful, as has been said and will no doubt continue to be said by other hon. Members. A soldier's first tour in Ulster must be exciting. The bugles blow


and the young men are told that this time they will fire their guns for real. The fourth or fifth tour cannot be so wonderful. One of the Royal Green Jackets units from Winchester is about to start its fifth tour of duty in Ulster. Therefore, it is up to the Government to see that the wonderful work which the troops have done there is not put at risk by being kept on this job too long. It is desperately necessary, if only for the sake of the Armed Forces, that the Government should reach a political decision as quickly as possible.
I want to make one last point affecting morale and discipline. The Select Committee which reported upon the Armed Forces Bill dealt with standardisation, which is always liable to crop up from time to time. The report said:
Your Committee does not wish to recommend the expenditure of further time and effort in an attempt to achieve standardisation for standardisation's sake".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not hear the word "discipline" in that passage.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: That is the end of my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) assured you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he was amidships. My speech will be in the steerage, but never fear it will be on the right side of the bulkhead, I hope.
I join in the tributes that have been paid to the morale of those who serve in most difficult circumstances in Northern Ireland—my constituents and everybody else's—but may I raise one question with the Minister. Some of us were unhappy this afternoon when my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) raised the question of the way in which the Ministry of Defence gave information to bereaved people who were the kin of those who had been killed on active service.
I must say—as I told my hon. Friend I would—that I should not have put it in anything like that language. My experience is that when these accidents happen the Ministry is extremely good with relatives and goes to an enormous

amount of trouble. But this exchange having taken place, perhaps the Minister who is to reply to the debate should say something about how relatives are informed in these most depressing and often sad and macabre circumstances.
Because of what has gone on earlier in the debate, and because of what happened this afternoon, it is reasonable to ask what is the philosophy of the Ministry of Defence and what rules are applied in bearing the news to relatives of those who have been either seriously injured or killed. In my view a telegram is a bad way of conveying the news, because it ought to be broken personally.
It may be that the view is taken that as soon as possible relatives should be informed of what has happened, and I do not disagree with that, but it would be better if a policeman or some other public official went to the house, knocked on the door and broke the news gently. I say that because if someone living alone receives one of these telegrams he could suffer a considerable shock, to put it mildly. All I say is that when people have this disastrous news broken to them it is important that they should not be alone, and I hope that we may have some comment from the Minister about the Minister's philosophy on this subject.
Secondly, I echo the thoughts of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) about the other place. I do so not in any sense of malice, or of being unjustfiably rude to the Minister, but because I think that there are problems for the House of Commons when the Secretary of State for Defence is in the other place, and I shall say why.
On talking to previous junior Ministers, in both Labour and Conservative Governments, one finds that the defence set up in this country is such that only the Secretary of State for Defence can give answers on certain questions. This inevitably means that his junior Ministers stall. It may be greatly to their own disadvantage that they do so, and it cannot be pleasant to have to stall, but this happens because the Cabinet Minister responsible for defence is in a unique position.
That being the situation, it is unfortunate from the point of view of the House of Commons that for a comparatively long time the Secretary of State for


Defence, with all his authority, has not been in this House. I shall not stray out of order. I propose just to touch on a matter raised this afternoon and mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester. He and I take different views on the Five-Power agreement in the Far East, but I think we would agree that this is a question of vital importance involving our relations with Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore, and that it should be answered at the level of the Foreign Secretary in this case the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman's question was hypothetical, and whether I had been the Secretary of State for Defence or the Foreign Secretary it would have been impossible for me to have given a definite answer on the South-East situation three days before the Australian election.

Mr. Dalyell: I have to concede that, but events have taken place in New Zealand. The assurance that one would like is that the Government are looking at contingency plans, because if they are not there will be a muck-up in that area of the world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said that the presence that is given to another place has certain side effects. I shall give a concrete example of something that bothers me greatly. A very important Bill has started in the other place. It is almost being slipped in. It is the Atomic Energy Weapon Authority—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I think that the hon. Member is over-estimating his optimism about the rules for this debate.

Mr. Dalyell: This involves civilian discipline in the Armed Forces and the whole set up at Aldermaston.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps what I have to say will be taken across the ether by some kind of transmission. I am sure that the Ministry of Defence has taken the point, but I give notice that when it comes to the House there will be a tremendous miniscule interest and I hope that I shall be a member of the Committee.
I now propose to raise a matter about which I have had helpful correspondence with the Minister. This is the question of civilian discipline and the discipline that is intertwined with promotional prospects. I shall not name the individual, but I think the Minister will recall from the correspondence that he was in BAOR. Either the Minister or his private office have taken a great deal of trouble over the case but, on reading the correspondence, I am bothered about whether the Ministry of Defence, having given its word in one direction to rather senior civilian members of staff, has kept its word in a moral as opposed to a legalistic sense. I think that in the matter of promotional prospects it should be said that a Government Department—and the Ministry of Defence more than most—has an obligation to honour its word morally and legally. I leave it there.
Just to keep the right side of the bulkhead and not to earn any more ferocious looks I choose as my text Section 38 of the Armed Forces Act 1971, coupled with Section 42. This is on naval discipline. Other Government Departments know that I am very interested in the question of pollution, particularly from discharges into estuaries.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a bad beginning, unless the hon. Member is going to improve very quickly. He is out of order.

Mr. Dalyell: The report of the Royal Commission on Environmental pollution says in paragraph 27(c):
the amending legislation should remove the present exemption from control of discharges of sewage from all vessels, including Naval vessels, in 'controlled waters'.
The question that I have to ask is bang in order. It is bang amidships, to use the hon. Gentleman's words.
What kind of discipline will be applied to naval officers who are found guilty of not having carried out the recommendations which we hope will be made by the Department of the Environment on the discharge of sewage and pollution into estuarial waters? There is a wide range. Is it to be:
(a) death, (b) imprisonment, (c) dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service, (d) dismissal from Her Majesty's service, (e) detention for a term not exceeding two years, (f) forfeiture of seniority for a specified term or


otherwise, (g) dismissal from the ship or naval establishment to which the offender belongs, (h) disrating, (i) fine, (j) severe reprimand, (k) reprimand, (l) in the case of an offence which has occasioned any expense, loss or damage, stoppages, that is to say, the recovery, by deductions from the offenders' pay, of a specified sum by way of compensation for the expense, loss or damage
Or
(m) such minor punishments as may from time to time be authorised by the Defence Council"?
Concerned though I am about the estuarial coast of West Lothian and its pollution, I would not go for (a), (b) or (c)—death, imprisonment or dismissal with disgrace—because I am, on the whole, a humane man.
Serious, we should like to know the thinking of the Department, if it is to take Sir Eric Ashby and his Committee seriously, as it has said it will, on how that report can be implemented. The Ashley Committee is very concerned about the possible exclusion of naval vessels from the general code of conduct which will apply to all the merchant fleet.
Therefore, how are we to ensure that the Navy—I am not saying that they are the worst offenders, but there is some circumstantial evidence that they are offenders—will comply with the national and international agreements into which this country has entered in implementing the ideas of Sir Eric Ashby and, now, numerous Government committees? When a Government boast, as this Government did at the recent conference, about what they have done on dumping, they must be sure how they will implement the policy about which they have been boasting.
So it is absolutely in order, I think, to be given some inkling of how discipline should be applied to those found guilty on naval ships of breaking the pollution laws. This is a very important matter. If we have ships of the size of a £62 million through-deck cruiser—or more than one, as the hon Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) would have it—it becomes a very important problem.
That is my major point and an important one. Although I put it a little frivolously, I mean every word I say. It is very important tonight to have some sketch of departmental thinking on what is to be done about polluters in uniform, if there are such.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson: This debate is an important constitutional occasion, although, judging from the constraints of order, one might be forgiven for doubting it. I shall seek to support the continuation of the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts and in doing so I shall refer to the relevant disciplinary, morale and personnel matters.
First, any hon. Member must pay a tribute at this time to the discipline and conduct and morale of Her Majesty's Forces in Northern Ireland. I should particularly like to do so as a West Yorkshire Member on the day after the day which brought the tragic announcement of the 100th death of a British soldier this year on active service in Northern Ireland—especially so as he came from West Yorkshire. The restraint, discipline and understanding of our troops, and the forbearing of their families as well, must be very widely welcomed and highly applauded by this House.
I should also like to pay a tribute to the discipline and bearing of the Ulster Defence Regiment, which also comes under these Acts. It has a particular burden and an especially difficult one. It does not return at the conclusion of its duty to guarded barracks. Its members take the dangers of their obligation back home with them and share them with their families. Few complaints have been levelled against their conduct on disciplinary grounds. Attempts by the terrorist organisations to intimidate Roman Catholics in particular to leave the regiment have also been manifest, but the regiment's conduct has been exemplary.
On the naval side, we have all been apprehensive at the implications of the fraud revelations. I welcome the very wide-ranging inquiry, extending to catering in all three Services, which my right hon. Friend has instituted. It has also, sadly, been a year marred by the Bingham spy affair. This is not an inappropriate occasion to re-emphasise the importance of good discipline and vigilance in the field of security. It is crucial to the defence of this country.
I had the honour to visit HMS "Ark Royal" just after Strong Express, one of the most significant and large-scale


NATO exercises conducted in recent years, and I was impressed by the discipline of the Fleet Air Arm in its operations. Nothing calls for more discipline and efficiency than air operations at sea. I am sure that this has been brought home not only to my hon. Friend and his colleagues but to the NATO staffs as well.
I turn now to the Royal Air Force, and would like to refer to one aspect of its activities which is well known to the general public. It might not be so widely remembered, however, that, at the beginning of this exercise season for the Red Arrows there was a tragic accident which involved loss of life. None the less, the discipline of this Central Flying School team and the way that it carried out its training throughout the succeeding part of the season was exemplary. I believe that the general public appreciated it, and it was in large measure due to the morale and discipline of the Royal Air Force.
Both the Minister of State and the Secretary of State referred at some length and in detail to the redundancy scheme which is to affect 6 per cent. of Royal Air Force personnel. I will concern myself in this debate only with that part of the redundancy scheme which affects officers, because in supporting the continuation orders, we must know the strength of the Services to which the orders are to apply.
A matter as important as redundancy will affect the morale and discipline of the Service profoundly. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, in the other place, asked whether those officers made redundant would have a reserve liability. My noble friend, the Secretary of State, replied:
My Lords, I think they would, but if I am wrong, I will certainly let the noble Lord know.
This is a very important aspect, because the reserve elements of the Services are subject to the Discipline Acts just as much as the regular element. It is therefore important to know whether these personnel will have a reserve liability.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be aware that I would welcome it because they are personnel with an experience extending over many years, which has been acquired at great cost to the taxpayer. If this ex-

perience were not utilised to the full in a reserve capacity, we should be anxious about it. I would therefore ask my hon. Friend to clarify this.
There was also some exchange about the terms of the redundancy, on which also there is need for clarification. The Secretary of State was not very clear on this point when he said:
The pension rights will be unaltered. The pensions will be smaller because of their shorter length of service, but they will get pensions."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, House of Lords, 21st November, 1972; c. 919, 929.]
What I am asking my hon. Friend is, what happens to those who opt for the redundancy who have not yet reached the 38/16 year point of service? As my right hon. Friend knows, in normal circumstances they are not eligible for pension.
I should also like to ask about the lump sum which will be available for those who are made redundant. The lump sum is normally three times the annual rate of retirement pay. This time I believe that it will be that amount plus about 80 per cent. of 21 months' salary. I should like my right hon. Friend to clarify that point because it is important that the public and the Service men should know exactly the terms on which they should or may seek redundancy.
As this will affect the discipline of the Armed Forces very much over the next few years, I should also like to know how long a process my right hon. Friend considers that this redundancy will be. I am certain that it is a continuing process, one which will probably last about five years. My right hon. Friend suggested that we were only at the beginning of a process of rationalisation. Therefore, upon which branch of the Service will these redundancies impinge most heavily?
I am certain again that they will impinge most heavily upon the general duties branch, that is, the Flying Branch, which in peacetime has the greatest burdens in the disciplinary sense because its activities impinge most upon the general public. Here again, it is very important to know roughly how many general duties officers are likely to be made redundant over the next five years and in what categories of specialisation those redundancies will fall. The greater preponderance, I am sure, will be in the pilot


category. I should like more information about this.
Looking beyond these categories, the discipline of the Service will be very much affected according to the seniority of those who will seek redundancy. In other words it is vital for Service men to know that they have an assured career. I should like my right hon. Friend to say whether the specialist aircrew scheme has proved a success and whether specialist aircrew are to be asked whether they wish to take advantage of this redundancy scheme.
I am certain that the greatest burden of redundancy will fall on the junior officer ranks, that is, those below the rank of Squadron Leader. If that is so, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that these are people who normally have several years potential active service ahead of them? Will he, therefore, consider using their experience in some productive reserve capacity?
This has been a useful debate. I regret, however, the limitations which have been imposed. We have had a number of hints about personnel matters and morale matters that very profoundly affect all three Services. One, the Royal Air Force redundancy scheme, which formed the heart of the speech of my noble Friend the Secretary of State in the other place, has not received much amplification in this House.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: In view of the limitations drawn on the order and of my serving on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, I have been tempted to try my luck in seeing whether I can remain in order for at least five minutes.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) present. He is now elevated to higher climes. I remember his speech at the beginning of the debate on the Address when he was taking a trip around Colchester. He did that very nicely, but he omitted the part of his constituency I knew best. I think it is now called a corrective establishment. It was known differently in days past.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Antony Buck): May I just say what a good job seems to have been done at the MCE?

Mr. Concannon: Many would not agree. However, we are debating matters related to discipline. The debate could have been broader and about the forces as a whole, as it used to be. I have been trying to recollect what I was being disciplined for at one time or another in my service. I should have thought that anything went then. At one time or another I was in trouble over various matters.
We are discussing whether the Acts should be continued for a further year, and obviously no one would disagree with that. I concur wholeheartedly with all that has been said in the House today about our forces in Northern Ireland and the disciplinary situation there. As a young guardsman involved in the situation in Palestine and Egypt and places such as those, I know what a terrific strain these situations can put on young Servicemen who are in them for the first time. When troops are at full stretch, they become irksome and tired. To a great extent, however, they are not always trained to the highest pitch of performance.
I recollect some of the nasty accidents that used to happen in places overseas, accidents not only between civilians and troops but also between the troops themselves. These were things beyond the normal machinations of the day. They were attributed to complete over-stretch, at times when the forces were having two hours on duty and two hours off, sleeping where they could, in their uniforms, with rifles tied to them, and so on. In such circumstances their ability to think and react 100 per cent. is impaired.
I am glad that the tour of duty of our troops in Northern Ireland is for only a short spell; the shorter the better. I do not think it could be shortened any more than it is at present. But there will always be a few incidents. What surprises me is that there are not many more. All the offences being alleged against our troops in Northern Ireland concern the normal thing one expects in this sort of confrontation. I am glad the Minister said the number of offences occurring in Northern Ireland is steadily decreasing. I think he said that they had decreased by half.
What worries me is the disciplinary end afterwards. I am becoming perturbed about the manner of the discipline that soldiers are having to take


in these circumstances. Many young men join the Army intent on making it a career. At the tender age of 18 they are thrown into a situation such as that in Northern Ireland. For one mistake, through tiredness or irksomeness, they find themselves in trouble.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned the strains and tensions, particularly in a place like Northern Ireland. Would he not agree that the young soldier, aged about 18, who was fined £30 by his commanding officer for swearing at a civilian who had been taunting him was treated in a manner which was a little over the edge?

Mr. Concannon: These may be isolated cases, but they are part of the symptoms I have mentioned.
I am more perturbed about the ending of a young man's career at the age of 18 or 19, and that of the long-serving soldier who has, perhaps, seven or eight years' service and who suddenly finds himself accidentally, through the pressures in Northern Ireland, on a charge. I am amazed that such men are now being discharged from the Army for offences which the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) would agree at one time would have meant a belt on the ear from the RSM or a fortnight in the guardroom. I am worried about the number of people whose careers are being ended through this kind of thing.
Quite a few of my friends are still in the Regular Army and give me information about morale in Northern Ireland. I have encountered and spoken to our troops there. The morale of our troops serving in Northern Ireland is of the highest order. It always has been and it probably always will be, following the long tradition of the British Army.
I repeat my point that during difficult times such as these I should like to see generosity exercised towards a man who comes up for punishment and whose Army career is at stake because of one slip.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Some of the points which have been raised in this debate will be better dealt with in correspondence. If

I tried to deal with some of the other points now, I should be unduly straining your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in view of the remarks you have made about the rules of order.
The most charitable explanation of the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is that he felt hard up for something to say because of the strict limitations on this debate. It is not true to say that less information has been given on defence matters over the last few years. Much information has been given. Much more information is being given by the present Government to the Sub-Committees on Defence and Foreign Expenditure than has been given by any previous Government.
Both the hon. Gentleman and I have studied the constitution. For the hon. Gentleman to try to make a constitutional point about this matter having been debated a week ago in another place is carrying matters very far. The fact that the rules of order in another place are more lax than those here is nothing to do with the Government and does not affect the House of Commons.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) found from talking to Ministers in the Labour Government that they had difficulty in knowing what was going on because the Secretary of State was the only one who knew. The communications are much better in this Government than they were in the past evidently.

Mr. Dalyell: I did not say that the communications were bad. I said it was a question of the authority with which Ministers in this peculiarly sensitive Department felt entitled to speak. That is rather different point.

Mr. Gilmour: I appreciate that. Equally the Secretary of State, knowing the realities in the House of Commons, is prepared to delegate his authority for making announcements and answering questions to his representative in the House of Commons.

Mr. Hattersley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the point I made was not made in any frivolous spirit or in terms of party debate. The complaint I made at the opening of my speech was the same one that I made at 2.40 p.m. on


behalf of some of my hon. Friends who felt that they had received less than courtesy in one of the Minister of State's replies. A similar complaint was made by one of his hon. Friends. The only thing that unites the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and me is our belief that the information coming from the Minister of State and his colleagues has been inadequate.

Mr. Gilmour: It has been a recurrent complaint under every Government that the Defence Department and other Government Departments do not give the House enough information. The facts bear out my contention that the present Government have given rather more information than previous Governments.
I assure the hon. Member for Spark-brook that recruiting was down by only 10 per cent. on last year. The decline is roughly what we expected. It would be silly to make an exact prediction of our expectations month by month. We neither strive for nor achieve exactitude.
The hon. Gentleman was unduly alarmist in talking about re-engagement rates. I do not think they have fallen. The hon. Gentleman may have been misled by the Royal Air Force, which has purposely reduced its re-engagement. The hon. Gentleman is on to an important point, however, because we all agree that re-engagement and reduction of wastage are every bit as important as maintaining recruitment.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about pay, a subject on which, in deference to the original ruling, I did not embark. The hon. Gentleman asked me to be staggeringly precise. This is what I will aim to be. The hon. Gentleman asked me to say that if the pay review body recommended a pay increase next April we would certainly implement it, whatever the Government's pay policy was at that time.
The full two-year period will not be up until 1974, so we cannot be sure that in 1973 the pay review body will recommend a pay increase. As we do not know that and as we do not know what the position will be with the Government's pay policy at that time, I cannot be more staggeringly precise in my answer.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about complaints, as did the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) from a rather different angle. The hon. Member for Mansfield talked in an understanding and experienced way about the over-stretch from which our forces in Northern Ireland are likely to suffer.
The Army is in a difficulty about investigating them. We understand the considerable importance of investigating complaints. The analogy with the police force has been used. Where possible we like to act on that analogy, but there is a considerable legal difficulty.
We investigate individual complaints. I draw a distinction between the individual and the general complaints. The general complaints are sheer propaganda and nonsense. A minor incident is normally exaggerated by people who magnify it into a great drama. It then becomes an alleged civil offence. It therefore has to be referred to the civil authorities and the Army cannot investigate it because it becomes sub judice. Some of the propagandist attempts by people complaining about the Army take matters out of the Army's jurisdiction.
I entirely agree with what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) said about the high standards in the forces, though I do not think I can follow him into East of Suez and Harriers.
It will be best if I write to the hon. Member for West Lothian about the case to which he referred without naming it.

Mr. Dalyell: Certainly.

Mr. Gilmour: On the question of the discharge of sewage, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Royal Navy will have no difficulty in determining the appropriate penalty for any convicted polluter.

Mr. Dalyell: Do I detect any note of complacency? The Ashby Committee has specifically drawn attention to the naval requirement that for some reason it should be excluded from the pollution laws that are to govern the rest of shipping. If that is the situation the case must be made out, at any rate in peacetime, for excluding the Navy. It should be for the committee, not an individual hon. Member, to make that point. When it comes to the debate on the Third


Report of the Environment Committee I shall be raising the matter and I hope that the Ministry of Defence will take avoiding action.

Mr. Gilmour: That is an important point and no one will seek to dispute it. I was seeking to suggest, however, that it was not a subject suitable for detailed scrutiny in tonight's debate.
The hon. Member spoke about informing next-of-kin of casualties and he suggested that the news should be broken by a personal call on the next-of-kin. That is often done. We take great trouble in these distressing cases and sometimes a policeman or a member of the unit calls personally. It is impossible, however, to avoid casualties being reported, and once they have been reported great anxiety is naturally created for other families. There is therefore a real difficulty here. We are doing what we can and we are taking into account everything that has been said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) asked about the reserve liability of officers who are made redundant. Those officers will have the same reserve liability as other officers who leave the Service. They will get a proportion of their pension, that proportion being related to their length of service. As my hon. Friend suggested, this is a continuing process and it will take a number of years. If there are any further points which I should have dealt with but have not taken up. I shall write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Wilkinson: Can my hon. Friend, with the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force, consider expanding the training commitment of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve in case some of those who have such a reserve liability want actively to be able to pursue at least some of their former RAF skills?

Mr. Gilmour: I take note of what my hon. Friend says, but I cannot pursue the matter now.
The debate was concluded on a very good note from the back benches by the hon. Member for Mansfield, who spoke most understandingly about the difficulties of our forces in Northern Ireland and the troubles they have to deal with. I

believe that he exaggerated the number of people who have had to end their army service because of what has happened in Northern Ireland. I shall, however, compute the figures and let him have them later.

Mr. Concannon: I was not directing my remarks on this aspect specifically to our troops in Northern Ireland. The same thing happens to a great extent in BAOR and places like that. I was outlining the stresses and strains generally for all our Armed Forces.

Mr. Gilmour: I thought the general drift of the hon. Member's remarks was that the stresses and strains were greater in Northern Ireland than elsewhere.
Although it has been a narrow debate and there has been criticism of the Government and the Ministry of Defence, there has been no criticism of our Armed Forces. I believe this to be indicative of the general esteem in which they are held.

Mr. John Morris: I was unable to hear the Minister's earlier speech, but I do not want to let the occasion pass, having sat through 10 or 12 Sessions of the Select Committee, without taking up one of the questions we asked in the Committee. I refer to the situation in the Armed Forces in relation to drugs we were given assurances in the course of our inquiries. In my experience offences in the Armed Forces do not run exactly parallel with those in civil life which I have to deal with from time to time, but there is a certain degree of parallel. I am sorry to give the Minister such short notice, but I believe that there is a problem and I do not think the matter is as happy as I was told it was in the Select Committee.
I have just returned from speaking to Servicemen in distant parts of the globe. Is the Minister entirely happy about the situation? Can we declare a clean bill of health or has the Minister applied his mind to whether there is a full and proper knowledge about whether a problem exists? The armed forces of other countries certainly have a problem on a major scale. If the Minister is able to tell us that there is no problem in our Armed Forces, I shall be perfectly happy with that.

Mr. Gilmour: I should be making an exaggerated claim if I said that I had


applied my mind very closely to the problem. I have not. As far as I know, we have a considerably smaller problem than some of the armed forces to which the right hon. Gentleman has probably been referring. I should like to give him a considered reply but as far as I know there is no reason for undue concern. I should be very surprised if the situation was not very much better in the Armed Forces than it is anywhere else.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 31st October, be approved.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

CAROLINE DESRAMAULT

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for having allocated the time to me to raise again the scandal of the case of baby Caroline Desramault. When I took the matter up on 29th March 1971 little did I think that here tonight, exactly 20 months later, I should have to go once more through this painful business.
The inhumanity heaped on the head of Linda Desramault and baby Caroline started on that dark day of December 1970 at Gosforth magistrates' court when Mrs. Peile, Chairman of the Bench, and Mr. Mitchell, her fellow magistrate, perpetrated what is now regarded by many of my fellow citizens as being as great an injustice as has ever been perpetrated in the name of justice. Mr. Mitchell has had the good sense as a magistrate to refrain from comment on the case. Mrs. Peile has been brash enough to give an exclusive interview with a national daily paper and then addle-headed enough when interviewed by Mr. Dan O'Neil, of the Sunday Sun, Newcastle, in reply to his question
If you had this case before you tomorrow, Mrs. Peile, what would you do?
to say
I would do exactly the same again.

That was clearly a deliberate snub to the Lord Chancellor, who had condemned the magistrates' decision out of hand. We can possibly overlook a snub to the Lord Chancellor. But worse, it was a direct snub to the Court of Appeal in London, which had reversed the magistrates' decision.
It is reasonable to assume that the Lord Chancellor sought from Mrs. Peile a denial of the statement, to avoid the necessity of removing her from the Bench for gross contempt of the High Court. I find it remarkable that, having denied the veracity of the Sunday Sun report of her remarks—only after I had publicly stated that I intended to seek for the Lord Chancellor an undertaking that he would remove her from the Bench as an unfit person to sit in judgment on others—Mrs. Peile has taken no action against the newspaper or Mr. O'Neil.
I know both Mr. O'Neil and the editor of the Sunday Sun personally as highly respected journalists. I have no reason to doubt the truth of what Mr. O'Neil caused to be published on that Sunday a few months ago, with the full consent of his editor.
After the High Court decision giving custody to the mother, Mrs. Desramault flew to France in February 1971. There she was met by a defiant René Desramault, who said that the baby was his to keep. He started divorce proceedings in April 1971. On 7th May at Versailles we had the judgment of Solomon, custody being awarded to mother and father on a three-monthly basis. But on 17th May, the day that Linda was to have her three-months' custody, René took the child into hiding.
On 8th July 1971 the Paris High Court gave full custody to Madame Desramault, the baby's grandmother, with an instruction that social and background reports be prepared for a further hearing at Versailles to decide finally on the custody of the child. I thought, "This is it. Now we shall have progress to a just decision." But months went by with no indication of any request to the authorities to prepare the reports demanded by the Paris court.
On 27th January this year I wrote to the Prime Minister, saying:
No doubt you will recall the case of the baby Caroline Desramault who is at present in the custody of her French grandmother.


In July, last year, a Paris court ordered social and background reports on Caroline's parents to be prepared for the consideration of the court in a future hearing as to the custody of the child.
To date, no instructions have been received from France by the French Consul in Liverpool. It really does smack to me of almost inhuman disregard for the feelings of this very brave British subject, Linda Desramault, that the French authorities should be so callously treating this very serious matter so completely frivolously.
I really do think that the human suffering inflicted on Mrs. Desramault should not be prolonged longer than need be. I hope that you would agree and that you would use your good offices to bring some pressure to bear on the French authorities to get some movement in this very sad case.
The Prime Minister replied that even discreet inquiries could give the appearance of interference by us with the French courts, and might produce the wrong result. Really! It is almost unbelievable that a British Prime Minister should allow a foreign State to be so lacking in basic humanity in the dispensation of justice for one of our own subjects, and not be prepared to make a discreet intervention on her behalf.
I possibly had a little sympathy with the Prime Minister then, because I realised that he was desperate to get this country into the EEC, and he did not want to run the risk of causing any offence to President Pompidou on any issue.
I then had an audience at the French embassy with the No. 2 to the ambassador, and protested at the lack of action. Finally, the necessary reports were prepared. I am not suggesting that my intervention with the French embassy brought that about, but that might be the case, because I had quite a favourable hearing by the ambassador's deputy.

Dame Irene Ward: I was worried about the length of time taken. People were inclined to say that our consul in Liverpool was being slow, so I rang up the French embassy and spoke to the counsellor. He explained to me something that I did not know, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not know, that the arrangement in the French courts is that before a request can be made to a consul it must go from one court to another, and that that had caused the delay. It was also suggested to me that perhaps some solicitors in France take

longer to get a case from court to court than others do. Therefore, the delay was nothing to do with our consul at Liverpool, who acted as soon as he could.
The hon. Gentleman has taken a great deal of trouble over the matter. I also rang up, only to be assured for myself and Mrs. Desramault that there was no delay on our part. I was very glad to discover the reason for the delay, distressing and disturbing though it was.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention on behalf of my constituent. There was no question of any delay by our consul, it was the French consul at Liverpool who was at fault. The hon. Lady can talk from now until the cows come home about solicitors to-ing and fro-ing, but nothing can excuse the fact that it took 12 months to obtain the social and background reports on these two parents, ordered by the Paris High Court. It was 12 months before the Northumberland County Council Children's Department received the request from the French consul in Liverpool.
I have talked to many lawyers in this country and every one of them has assured me that had such instructions been given by the British High Court, six weeks at the outside would have elapsed before the reports were with the court. If it can happen in this country, then no matter how different the French system may be, nothing can account for the 12-month delay.

Dame Irene Ward: I am sorry to intervene again, but that was not the advice that I was given by the French embassy. I do not want to repeat what I was told but it was said that the French solicitor who had been employed by Mrs. Desramault had been very slow. I have always been on very good terms with the French embassy and the French consul could not have been nicer and more co-operative. He said that that was the law of France and it had to be observed. I was not talking about solicitors in this country but about French solicitors, who must follow the French routine, which is very unfortunate.

Mr. Brown: I feel that the hon. Lady and I are getting at cross purposes.

Dame Irene Ward: Not at all.

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Lady catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, she can make her point.
Following my intervention at the French embassy I was still awaiting the hearing at Versailles. I was so angry by this inactivity of the French that I wrote to the French President on 14th May as follows:—
Dear Monsieur Le President,
You will no doubt have heard about the case of the baby Caroline Desramault.
I will not waste your time in recriminations about the disgraceful delays in dealing with this case by the authorities in your country, which have angered many people in the United Kingdom.
Now that social and background reports on the parents of Caroline which were called for by the Paris Appeal Court last year have at long last been completed I appeal to you in the name of humanity to use your good offices to expedite a custody hearing at Versailles Court in order that the future of this child may be finally settled.
I do assure you that any action on your part to bring to a conclusion the long saga of events in the life of this very young child will be very much appreciated by a great many British people.
Whether M. Pompidou ever received my letter I do not know, for I have yet to have the courtesy of an acknowledgement. However, lest I am accused of being discourteous to the French President, I accept that through the vagaries of the GPO or the French postal system he may never have received my letter.
On 4th July Linda Desramault had the joy of a hearing in France awarding her the full custody of Caroline from 7th August. In the interim period her husband appealed and lost, and on the day of the hand-over he again went into hiding with the child, only to be traced on 8th September in Switzerland. It is to the credit of the Swiss that they, unlike the French, have provided Caroline Desramault with some security, which she has never known since December 1970. Nevertheless this judiciary took over two months to decide not to decide; in other words, to leave it to the Court of Cassation in Paris to make the final decision on the appeal—which is an appeal on an appeal. That was an almost inhuman decision. Had the Swiss court upheld the decisions of our High Court and a French High Court, both of whom had awarded full custody to Linda, there the matter would have ended.
Instead, there is now the outrageous position that a man, in clear contempt of the High Court of his own country, having kidnapped the child to avoid acceptance of the court order, is to be allowed, blessed as he is with the Swiss court non-decision, again to appeal. It is outrageous that this situation should ever have been allowed to develop. This position has been reached as a direct result of the idiosyncracies of the law and lawyers in three countries. This sad child has lived in three or four countries, in numerous houses, with numerous people, in her short two-and-a-half years. No one can say with certainty that she will not be severely psychologically scarred or maladjusted in later life as a direct result of the inhumanity of man.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short)—the deputy Leader of my party—for agreeing to go with me on a further visit to the French embassy last week. I am grateful, too, to His Excellency the Ambassador for meeting us personally. He was most helpful and I sincerely hope that out of his intervention there may be some progress.
On the day I went to the French embassy—a fortnight ago today—I tabled a Question for the Prime Minister for reply today. Before tabling the Question I spent a great deal of time wading through Questions, correspondence and my last Adjournment debate—and the First Assistant clerk at the Table also spent a considerable time—to be sure that we could clearly pin the Question to the Prime Minister. The Question is:
To ask the Prime Minister if, following his earlier undertaking to find out what help and advice could be made available to Mrs. Linda Desramault in France, he will, in the light of recent developments in the case, make further inquiries both in France and in Switzerland.
The First Assistant Clerk at the Table is far more expert than I am at pinning a Question to a particular Minister, and we were quite sure that the Question was pinned to the Prime Minister. At the end of eight days he announced that he was switching it to the Foreign Secretary, so the Question now reads:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, following his earlier undertaking to find out what help and


advice could be made available to Mrs. Linda Desramault … he will make further inquiries …
But the Secretary of State had never given any earlier undertakings to find out what help and advice could be made available to Mrs. Desramault. It was the Solicitor-General who, in replying to my Adjournment debate 20 months ago, undertook to see that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would seek to find out what was requested in the Question.
I take a dim view of the fact that the Prime Minister sought to wriggle out of a Question because of its embarrassing nature. Nevertheless, I do not want to create any animosity towards the Prime Minister personally. I wish to appeal to him in the interests of simple humanity. The answer given to that Question was a stereotyped one which read as follows:
The matter is one for the courts.
I am not prepared to accept the reply that the matter is one for the courts. I am prepared to believe that if this regrettable case had happened in this country, the Lord Chancellor would have had a word in the ear of the Lord Chief Justice and said, "Public opinion is absolutely outraged at the delay in this case. Get the case brought forward quickly." I have no doubt that this would not have been a case of the executive interfering with the judiciary because, in the final analysis, the judiciary has to decide the matter. I am suggesting that the same thing could be done as between Prime Minister and Prime Minister.
I want to put to the Prime Minister that, in the interests of simple humanity, he should show some compassion and make a diplomatic intervention with the French Government so that a special hearing of the Cassation Court can be heard quickly, so that little Caroline Desramault can be reunited with her mother in Newcastle for Christmas, 1972. Let us not allow this appalling case to drag on for one day longer than is necessary.

8.47 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): We know the sad history of this child. It started, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Robert C. Brown) said, on

7th December, 1970 when the justices at the West Castle Ward Petty Sessions in Northumberland awarded custody of Caroline Desramault, then seven months old, to the French father and, furthermore, in such a way as to permit him to remove her forthwith from the jurisdiction of Her Majesty.
I appreciate that there is some conflict of evidence as to whether or not an application for a stay of execution was properly made. However, much of the trouble would have been avoided had a stay been granted. It cannot be too often stated or too widely known that the desirability or otherwise of granting or rejecting a stay of execution pending appeal should always be canvassed at the close of proceedings involving the physical control of a young person.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the stay of execution. This morning I was up at the crack of dawn at the Public Bill Office and just missed obtaining a Ten-Minute Bill. I intend, if I possibly can, to introduce a Bill to make it mandatory for magistrates to impose a stay of execution of 14 days so that the child concerned will not be allowed to go outside the jurisdiction of the British courts until there has been time for an appeal. I hope that the Government will support me in this matter.

Mr. Kershaw: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be very interested to hear that, and I have no doubt he will take note.
It should also be borne in mind that an appeal from a refusal to grant a stay can be made to the High Court, even by telephone. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for calling attention to this matter in case it could be overlooked.
However, those things did not happen. We now know that the justices were wrong. I do not question their good faith. The hon. Gentleman with his involvement in the matter, seems to attack one magistrate in particular almost as a matter of personal vendetta, though I do not suppose that he means to give that impression. But save that, of course, he differs from the decision, he has not been able to give any example or instance of impropriety or incapacity


on the part of the magistrate, and I think that his interpretation of the magistrate's action, under the absolute privilege which we enjoy in this House, begins to be—how shall I put it?—a bit much.
The court's decision was reversed, but too late to affect the result, as Caroline was by that time in France. Once in France, Caroline is for all purposes a French citizen. Technically it is correct that only the French authorities can state definitively whether she is a French citizen. But, so far as we can tell, she has dual nationality from her French father and from the fact that she was born in this country, so that while in France she is French, and while in the United Kingdom she is English.
We have no right under international law and custom to make any representations to the French about jurisdiction over Caroline while she is on French territory, any more than we have about any other French citizen.
The hon. Member said that Mrs. Desramault is one of us. So she is, when she is here; but equally I have hardly any doubt that, when in France, she is French by virtue of her marriage to a Frenchman, unless—I have no exact information about this—she specifically renounced French citizenship before her marriage.
We have, therefore, a situation in which both the mother and her child are French citizens while in France. All we can do is what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said he would do, and what was done, namely, to arrange for the embassy in Paris to give general help and, in particular, to advise Mrs. Desramault on a choice of lawyer in France.
The hon. Gentleman has rightly rehearsed some of the chronicle, but I think that it would not be otiose if I did the same. In April 1971 Mrs. Desramault instituted proceedings in the French courts at Versailles. In May, 1971 the court made an award giving to each parent alternate three-month periods of custody—a judgment of Solomon, as the hon. Gentleman described it. Mr. Desramault appealed and in July 1971 Caroline was placed in the custody of Mr. Desramault's mother.

Mr. Brown: A delightful lady

Mr. Kershaw: I am sure she is. In May 1972 Mr. Desramault quarrelled with his mother and took the child away from her. In June that year the children's court at Bethune gave him the custody of the child, with visiting rights to the mother. However, in July 1972 the court at Versailles gave custody to Mrs. Desramault, with the right to take the child to England, which seemed to be all Mrs. Desramault wanted. The father appealed to the Paris Appeal Court, which upheld the decision of the court at Versailles, but, as is well known, he then disappeared with the child and later reappeared in Switzerland.
When Caroline was found, the Swiss authorities placed her in a children's home. Mrs. Desramault applied to the Swiss court in Lausanne to enforce the order of the French court in her favour. But on 14th November last the court decided to await the verdict of the French Court of Cassation to which Mr. Desramault had meanwhile appealed.
It is not for me to make any comment about the legal systems of other countries. It is a luxury which the hon. Gentleman was able to allow himself. Perhaps I should say that we often in this country complain of the law's delays, but it will be admitted that other legal systems seem also to have their delays. It seems that we have little of which to be ashamed.
Both France and Switzerland are parties to The Hague Convention of 1961. France has ratified the convention. It came into force between the two countries on 10th November 1972, only four days before the decision of the Swiss court. One purpose of the convention is to give primary jurisdiction in cases relating to the custody and protection of children to the State where the child habitually resides—that is to say, in this case France. No doubt the Swiss court had regard to the convention. This country is not a party to the convention because in our law the welfare of the child is the first and paramount consideration. We have our doubts whether the convention is compatible with that consideration.
The increasing number of cases relating to the custody and wardship of children which arise across frontiers in these days of international travel and of marriage between spouses of different nationality


have made it appropriate to examine the matter. The House may have noticed that the Law Commission established a working party in May, 1972 to consider the difficulties arising on custody orders, both in the British context and in the international context. Its terms of reference enabled it to consider the administrative problems involved in the enforcement of custody orders across jurisdictional boundaries. The working party has started work and the Law Commission will probably produce a paper sometime in the middle of 1973.
Her Majesty's Government have taken another initiative in the custody and wardship of children. At the seventh conference of Ministers of Justice held in Basle in May, 1972, the United Kingdom proposed an item for the agenda of the conference, which read as follows:
Ways of improving co-operation in the guardianship and custody of children with particular reference to the mutual recognition of judicial decisions.
After discussion, including an interesting proposal from the French delegation for a form of "mixed arbitral tribunal" with judges from the two countries concerned, the subject was referred for further examination to the European Committee on Legal Co-operation, which is called CCJ. The CCJ is meeting next week and will consider further action.
The position now is that there is no provision for the reciprocal enforcement of custody proceedings. The differing social habits and views of family life held in different countries have up to now prevented such provisions from coming into being. However, a start is being made and Her Majesty's Government are active in the matter.
At the moment, therefore, there can be no doubt that this is a family dispute which is being legally and properly pursued in the courts of the appropriate countries.

Mr. Brown: I am not suggesting that the case has not been properly dealt with while in court, nor that the Prime Minister should play this matter up into an international incident and break off diplo-

matic relations with France or anything else of the sort. But I am suggesting that it is not too much to ask for a discreet Government-to-Government inquiry to guarantee that the hearing which is necessary by the Court of Cassation in Paris takes place and takes place quickly. Surely that is not too much to ask.

Mr. Kershaw: The hon. Gentleman is very persuasive. But I am sure he will recognise that in international and diplomatic relations it is necessary to abide by the rules. I can assure him that if we officially approached the French—we cannot do it unofficially, since one cannot divest oneself of one's capacity as a Minister in these matters—they would be perfectly entitled to think it a slight on their way of doing things, quite apart from the fact that they themselves may feel that they too are not entitled to influence their courts as to the way they conduct their business.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that his words tonight and his calls on the French Embassy in furtherance of his case have done far more good than it is possible for the Government officially to do in such a matter as this. This is why I welcome the debate, in which the hon. Gentleman has been able to express himself so frankly and freely. I have no doubt that the French authorities will take serious note of what he has said, but it would not be appropriate and would be counter-productive if Her Majesty's Government were to make any official démarche about this matter.
The question of whether one would be influencing the courts was dealt with in the previous debate on the subject by my right hon. and learned Friend the present Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs, who was then Solicitor-General. I do understand that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting a tactful word and not an attempt to tell the French their business. Nevertheless, this is perhaps a slippery slope upon which I would prefer my right hon. and learned Friends the Law Officers to comment rather than myself. We all hope that those who now have the jurisdiction and have the power to shape little Caroline's life and happiness will judge well.

LONDON TRAFFIC CONGESTION

9.2 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: The tragic subject of the Desramault family has been ably put to the House, and I join with the Under-Secretary of State in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Robert C. Brown) for the tenacity of his fight for justice for Mrs. Desramault. My hon. Friend will understand the reasons why, under parliamentary procedure, I do not follow him in talking about that case.
I want to pursue another matter on the Adjournment. My subject is something which has leaped into the headlines of the evening papers tonight—the traffic congestion in the central London area and the extraordinary behaviour of the Prime Minister. I must say that I am amazed that the Prime Minister is not in the House to take part in the debate. If in the middle of the night he can snatch up a telephone and get through to Tokyo, surely he could have dragged himself away from whatever function he is attending to be present in the House to give expression to his new-found concern for the people of London.
Every day for years the people of this great metropolis have suffered. I say this in no party political sense, because they have suffered under successive Governments. They have suffered because of inadequate public transport facilities. They have waited patiently for bus and train in cold weather and in wet; they have waited patiently in the queues for transport to work and back home. This is to say nothing of the housewives, their shopping bags brimming over with the family food, with both themselves and the food being thoroughly soaked while they wait in growing anger and frustration for the bus to arrive.
The Prime Minister and I both represent constituencies in the London Borough of Bexley. In the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, Bexleyheath suffers from the same disadvantages as my own. It has an inadequate, overcrowded train service on the Bexleyheath and Dartford line and on the North Kent line which runs through my constituency and takes in the new town of Thames-mead. It is no secret that the sudden

creation of the new town will put an even greater burden on the already overburdened North Kent railway line and, despite all the promises made from 1965 until now, there appears to be no new provision being made for those additional travellers who are being brought to live in Thamesmead.
The Prime Minister and I suffer from another disadvantage. Those who use the train services to London seem unable to get from their homes to their nearest railway stations without using their private cars for the journey. Once they have got to railway stations they park their cars outside other people's homes. Around Bexleyheath station in the Prime Minister's constituency and around Barnehurst station, the roads are crammed with commuters' cars which are parked there all day.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will concede that the railways, both the Metropolitan and Southern Region, are making tremendous efforts to provide more parking for those who prefer to leave their cars at railway stations and travel by train. Great progress has been made in recent years.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Certainly progress is being made. It is surprising, however, that the Prime Minister has not taken an earlier interest in the matter with a view to making progress a little faster. It appears to have taken the situation in which he found himself yesterday to produce his sudden late conversion. In his constituency there is a tremendous amount of car parking in residential streets near railway stations providing train services to central London. All our constituents who live near those stations know the frustration and anger that the Prime Minister must have felt last night when he could not get from this House to his other house just along Whitehall.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I commend my hon. Friend's initiative in raising this important issue. But he must be aware that the Southern Region of British Railways has quite major plans for the South-Eastern area which will bring badly needed improvements. However, those plans need finance. If the article in the Evening Standard is to be believed,


should not my hon. Friend be questioning the liberal lashing out of public money—the squandermania at £1 per minute—to telephone Sir Desmond in Tokyo?

Mr. Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend is just a few sentences ahead of me. I shall be coming to that important point very soon in my brief remarks. However, I wanted first to impress upon the House and the Prime Minister—assuming that he condescends even to read the report of this debate—the difficulties and frustration from which those whom he and I represent have suffered for a very long time.

Sir Elwyn Jones: My hon. Friend will be aware of the additional anxiety that is created in areas like West Ham by the parking of huge commercial vehicles, their accumulation on our roads, and the danger of many tragic accidents, which do occur, with children rushing out from between parked vehicles. This problem constitutes a major nuisance in our areas.

Mr. Wellbeloved: It does indeed. My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary will say something about heavy lorries using the roads of London and causing the dangers and delays to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred.
It is sad that the Prime Minister has only just awakened to this problem because he suffered personal inconvenience. That is the tragedy of the situation. He wanted to get from this House to Downing Street and, because of congestion outside, was unable to get there by car. If reports in the Press are correct, the poor chap had to do what lesser mortals who inhabit this great metropolis do each day if they cannot get to their destinations by wheel—walk. As a result, the Prime Minister flew into a fit of rage.
I wonder what the Under-Secretary, in his former position as spokesman for the Police Federation, would have said if somebody who had been frustrated because of traffic congestion blew his top and tore a strip off the first available policeman. The hon. Gentleman would quite rightly condemn that member of the general public in this House. I hope that tonight the hon. Gentleman will

express regret that the Prime Minister vented his anger upon a serving police officer—the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police—[Interruption.] If he did not, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will make it clear that the Press has got it wrong. I am relying for the claim that this is what he did on reports which have already appeared and are no doubt correct. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will put us right.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Gentleman has already admitted that the only evidence he has is a newspaper report. He will know that newspapers are not always quite accurate in what they say. If I catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I might say something about that.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make whatever condemnation he wishes of the Press. In my view, the Press serves a useful purpose in defending the rights of individual citizens against the type of Government from which we suffer today.

Mr. Cooke: The hon. Gentleman knows that we all defend the freedom of the Press to say exactly what it likes; but the Press sometimes gets its headlines crossed. I shall seek to prove that the Press can be very wrong, even on a matter like this.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The Press certainly have not got the facts wrong about the telephone call. I hope that no one will dispute that that took place.
What an example this kind of behaviour by the Prime Minister is to the people we represent in this House. The Evening Standard, one of the papers that no doubt the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) dislikes—

Mr. Robert Cooke: No. It is a jolly good paper.

Mr. Wellbeloved: —states:
Angered, frustrated and inconvenienced the Prime Minister demanded that Sir Desmond should make an explanation and take quick action to improve conditions.
Angered, frustrated and inconvenienced has been the lot of our constituents for a very long time.
I find the Prime Minister's behaviour quite extraordinary. This is the Queen's First Minister, the man who, if this


country were faced with a grave international crisis that called for an immediate response, would have his finger on the trigger, the man who can blow his top, grab a phone and make a call to Tokyo. This is the kind of man in whom we have to repose our trust to react to a crisis.

Mr. Robert Cooke: rose—

Mr. Wellbeloved: I shall not give way again. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech in his own time without being provoked too much by me.
The Prime Minister is the man on whom this nation has to rely to respond in a moment of crisis. What about poor Sir Desmond? What a flutter must have gone through his breast when, in his hotel room in Tokyo, the phone rang, he picked up the receiver and a voice said, "Sir Desmond, I have a call for you from the United Kingdom, from the Prime Minister himself." Sir Desmond must have thought, "What honour is about to be conferred upon me? Am I to become a member of the Government? Do they want yet another lame duck to join them? Or am I to become a peer in the New Years Honours List?". Poor Sir Desmond. With great expectation he picks up the phone and says, "Yes, Sir, it is I, Sir Desmond. I am here" and then, Voomph! the Queen's First Minister tells him the facts of London life and the troubles—

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I hate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's romance, but he should know that the Prime Minister himself made no telephone call.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Indeed! Perhaps it was some poor unfortunate civil servant or, worse still, perhaps it was the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey, (Mr. Anthony Royle) phoning on his behalf. We know not. Whether Sir Desmond heard the voice of the Prime Minister himself or that of one of his servants matters little. Poor Sir Desmond. How distraught he must have been to discover that the call was only from the Prime Minister's Office, if that be the fact.
That is the purpose of having an emergency debate of this nature. When one reads in the Press about this sort of thing happening, and when one finds

that the Prime Minister appears to have taken leave of his senses, the purpose of raising the matter in the House is to give one of his Ministers the opportunity, if there has been a misunderstanding or a misquotation, to come to the Dispatch Box and put forward the official version of what happened, and I hope that the Minister will be able to do that this evening. If the facts as reported in the Press are incorrect, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that I am doing a service to the Prime Minister by giving his junior Minister this early opportunity of putting on record the facts of the situation.
I hope that the Government Whip sitting alongside the Under-Secretary of State will not have the kind of difficulty that the Prime Minister had and blow his top because of inconvenience or frustration at having to sit silent while this debate takes place.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: The Under-Secretary of State said that the Prime Minister did not make the telephone call, or that he had nothing to do with this. I wonder whether my hon. Friend would invite the hon. Gentleman to accept responsibility for somebody very important in 10 Downing Street, because, according to the report in the papers
Sir Desmond telephoned orders to County Hall soon after his brush with Number 10. Metropolitan Police and GLC traffic experts immediately started preparing recommendations for action.
All this because the Prime Minister could not walk more than 400 yards. I wonder whether my hon. Friend would invite the Minister to say whether that was the reaction to some junior person, or whether the call was made on behalf of the Prime Minister himself.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt reply to that when he winds up the debate. I do not envy him the task of replying on behalf of the Prime Minister. I suppose we should say that the Prime Minister's sudden conversion to the problems of London traffic congestion and his irrational response to it are matters of humour, but the difficulties which Londoners face every day are not humorous—they are very serious indeed.
I want therefore to leave the Prime Minister for a few moments—no doubt some of my hon. Friends will want to come back to him—and examine some of the solutions to this problem which we all face in the London area. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) has already referred to heavy lorries. The vast increase of container traffic passing through London and to premises in London has contributed dramatically in recent years to the ever-increasing chaos and congestion in the Metropolis. I am therefore delighted that the House agreed, without a Division, this week to oppose the European Community's desire to inflict even greater monsters upon us.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Did my hon. Friend notice that, according to the newspaper he quoted, the report of the police was that at the junction of Bridge Street and Victoria Embankment a lorry breakdown caused long delays to traffic in Parliament Square and the Westminster area generally? Is he aware that not only lorry delays but loads which fall off lorries are a major cause of congestion in London? It was unfortunate, or perhaps fortunate, that the Prime Minister was delayed by that sort of incident yesterday.

Mr. Wellbeloved: We await with great interest the Minister's version of the facts of the delays that we in London, and the unfortunate Prime Minister in particular, suffered yesterday. It may have been primarily due to the lorry which broke down just round the corner. I have heard another version—that the chaos this week has been due to the experiment in Oxford Street conducted at the express wish of the GLC. Perhaps the Minister will be able to throw some light on that.
These monster lorries have been the major cause of the increasing congestion and chaos. I hope that the Government will stand by the clear wish of this House that if the Community's desire for 40-tonners should be resolutely resisted and that if the Community is unwise enough, two weeks before we join it, to impose this regulation, the Government will make it clear that we will not operate it and that it will be unacceptable to the British people and to this House.
I turn to the other major factor in our considerations tonight, the delays and the costs involved in public transport. It seems that we shall never even begin to solve the problems, to remove the frustrations and to quell the anger of Londoners unless we radically review the system of public transport in the metropolis. The Greater London Council has been considering this matter and has put forward some very novel ideas for discussion. One of those ideas has been that public transport in London should be free.
A major contributory factor to congestion is people—I plead guilty to this myself—who travel to work by car, with only one person in the vehicle. We congest the roads. But why do we have to use our cars? We have to use them because of inadequate transport and because of the delays suffered by public transport—delays to which we contribute and which we worsen by the use of our private cars. Many people are using their private vehicles because, if they are fortunate enough to have a parking place, it is sometimes cheaper than travelling by public transport. So there is much to be said for the idea that travel by public transport should be free. This would have the great benefit of maximising the number of people who would return to the use of public transport and forgo their private motor vehicle.

Mr. John Hall: The hon. Member will be aware that an experiment with free public transport was carried out in Rome not very long ago and that it proved to be a dismal failure.

Mr. Wellbeloved: We may not share all the characteristics of our new-found friends in the EEC. I should want to see an experiment conducted in this country before I was prepared to say that it was not a good suggestion that we should have free, or at least heavily subsidised, public transport. It may be that, rather than making transport free, as a public service it should have a contribution from public funds in order that it may have both low fares and high efficiency without having to depress the wages of those who serve in the industry.
I am always frightened that if we move into these new areas of trying to deal with London's traffic problems, and if we are to have a free or heavily subsidised


service, it may well be those who are employed on the service who have to contribute to that subsidisation. That would be an unacceptable scandal.
I want briefly to refer to the Press reports this evening, and in particular to the response of the Greater London Council to the Prime Minister's outrageous outburst. Mr. Horace Cutler, the Deputy Leader of the GLC, said in a Press statement today:
The trouble is that we have asked for stronger enforcement powers and while the Government agree in principle, they say that because the parliamentary machine is congested they cannot find time for the necessary legislation.
It may well be that the hon. Member for Bristol, West is right and that the Press has got the GLC and Mr. Cutler wrong.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I never said that.

Mr. Wellbeloved: That is the impression the hon. Gentleman is giving.

Mr. Cooke: Only to the hon. Member.

Mr. Wellbeloved: For the purposes of the Under-Secretary's reply, let us assume that the Press is accurate and that that statement is a correct statement by the Deputy Leader of the GLC. Let us apply the test to the Prime Minister's sincerity. The anger the Prime Minister reflected last night may well not have been based upon his response to personal inconvenience. It may well be that in the short walk from the Houses of Parliament to No. 10, he underwent a conversion to the understanding of the suffering and the problems of Londoners.
If so, the Prime Minister must give time for the House to debate and approve the legislation which the Greater London Council says it requires. If the Government do not provide time this Session for the Council's proposals to be considered, they will be showing that they do not care for the frustration and the suffering that Londoners have endured with a patience that appears to be completely foreign to the Prime Minister.
The Government's duty is clear. If the Under-Secretary is to put any gloss upon the Prime Minister's extraordinary behaviour, he must tell the House that time will be found to respond to the Greater London Council's plea for legislation to be considered in this Parliament.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I rise to address this packed House of eight, supported by a large number of hon. Members who are waiting to catch their trains to their constituencies for further work at the weekend, and to comment on one or two things that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) said and, I hope, to follow him in some of his suggestions for relieving the traffic difficulties in central London on which we would all like to see progress. Indeed, certain progress has been made.
Some of the hold-up that occurred yesterday may have been due to an experiment in other areas having adverse effects elsewhere.
Because I interrupted the hon. Gentleman at the beginning to ask him how he could justify some of the wilder things he was saying about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the hon. Gentleman tried to attach to me all kinds of things which, first, I did not say and, secondly, I do not believe. Without wishing to go over again the newspaper report which the hon. Gentleman flourished at the House, I should say that it is obvious that several of the inferences which the hon. Gentleman drew even from the newspaper report could not in fairness possibly be drawn by anybody except someone who wanted to make a good knockabout turn, which the hon. Gentleman certainly did—and I am sure that we greatly enjoyed it. I hope that those who read the reports of it will keep their sense of humour about the whole thing, certainly about the way the hon. Gentleman handled the matter.
I do not wish to get involved in going over again what is alleged to have happened with regard to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, except to say that it is quite inaccurate to interpret the alleged reactions of a Minister of the Crown, if indeed the Minister of the Crown reacted in the way the newspaper suggested and the hon. Gentleman alleged, by suggesting that the person was reacting merely because of personal inconvenience. I cannot believe that any Minister or any hon. Member, certainly not the hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford, reacting in a case of public frustration has ever reacted because of his own


personal attitude. It has always been because of the greater good of the greater public.
The hon. Member sought to suggest that I, because I have questioned the accuracy of certain things which he read out or to which he referred, was suggesting that the Evening Standard is a thoroughly inaccurate newspaper. I did not do anything of the sort, except to say that all newspapers are inaccurate at times. The Evening Standard is a great paper and it has done an enormous amount to make people better aware of the environmental problems of central London.
Last week I had the privilege in an Adjournment debate to speak on the subject of the improvement of the whole of the area of Whitehall and Parliament Square, the creation, as I hope, of a greater Parliament Square and a traffic-free precinct. I made a brief speech and the Minister for Housing and Construction replied to the debate and he conceded gladly all the points which I and my hon. Friend were making, points which are supported by a large number of people outside. As a result of what he said, all of historic Whitehall is now to be preserved.
I do not complain that when the Evening Standard reported this matter it did not even mention my name. It is glory enough that these buildings are not to be destroyed. The Evening Standard devoted a centre page spread to the subject. It said "Saved" and there were pictures of the buildings. We hope that the Evening Standard will conduct admirable campaigns in the future and I look forward to its support. But, oh, misery! This week, continuing the Whitehall saga on page 31 of the Evening Standard of Tuesday 28th November 1972, the headline said "Whitehall Disaster". It said:
While delighted with the Department of the Environment's decision to preserve new Scotland Yard, Richmond Terrace and other famous Government buildings, I think the character and appearance of the Embankment will be altered disastrously by the proposed demolition of Whitehall Court ".
Everyone knows what Whitehall Court looks like. It has the appearance of French chateau and it can be seen across St. James's Park. It has a magnificent

skyline and is listed as a protected building and there are no proposals for its demolition. Yet the Evening Standard said that it was to be demolished. As if that were not bad enough, the article appeared under a picture of the War Office. This little story illustrates how easy it is for a newspaper, bent on publicising a matter of public interest, to seize upon a particular thing and to make a magnificent story out of it.
I have no complaint about it. It is all good clean fun. It is good journalism. Newspapers can print what they like, thank heaven, although many Labour Members would wish it otherwise, and a lot of them would wish that the television and broadcasting media were more closely controlled.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I hope that in his excursion from Bristol to London the hon. Member will not get the idea that this is meant to be a humorous debate. It is very serious because the GLC has said how it believes the traffic problem can be eased and it has said that this would be possible if the Government provided parliamentary time. I hope that before the hon. Member resumes his seat he will join London Members in demanding of his Government that time should be provided for these essential matters.

Mr. Cooke: The hon. Member said all that in his own speech. He is perfectly entitled to say it again because we have plenty of time and he knows that I am serious about the matter. I have referred to the less serious aspect of his speech and he must realise that the rest of his speech was hardly serious and deserves to be treated with a certain amount of humour. I have made the point that last week we won a great victory and that now we shall see a great enhancement of the Whitehall area.
I return now to the serious point about the unfortunate state of the traffic, although yesterday there were exceptional reasons for it. But the lesson to be learnt is that an unexpected happening can cause difficulties, as we all know. This happens in our other cities, including Bristol. What I shall say in a moment has a bearing on every great city's problems. An unexpected happening can result in great trouble for many people, not just for those who have to walk a few yards. It will not do anyone any harm to have to walk a


few yards; most of us walk a few yards to this Palace many times during the week.
There is one serious point to be made about the traffic congestion, which has a bearing on last night. I happened to traverse—if that is the right word—Parliament Square at about the time when the alleged action might have been initiated because of the conditions that existed there. There is no question of their being merely alleged. I counted 10 large, friendly London omnibuses, and I looked carefully inside each one. I had plenty of time to do so, because I was in a motor car stuck in the Square. Not one of those buses contained more than three passengers, and some were empty. It is no good certain people—I shall mention no names—complaining about lack of parliamentary time or of funds to deal with the matter, because parliamentary time is not required to reschedule the buses.

Mr. Bagier: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Prime Minister should have caught the bus?

Mr. Cooke: That intervention is not worth referring to.
The point is—here I return to the question of inconvenience to the public—that a certain amount of reorganisation is obviously necessary. We have all seen what happens in our big cities with heavy vehicles. The public services are much at fault. Even if they are free of charge, people do not seem to use them. We see the public service juggernauts blocking up the roads. It does not require more money or parliamentary time to examine that problem.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: The hon. Gentleman asserts that public service juggernauts, as he calls them, are blocking the roads, and that even if they were free people would not make any more use of them. How can he make that assertion? We have never tried free public transport, even experimentally, in London.

Mr. Cooke: It has been tried elsewhere. I do not think that the GLC requires parliamentary time to make the buses free on a particular day. There have been experiments, and the lesson has been that people do not necessarily use the services.
I come to a concluding point, because there are no doubt other hon. Members who want to catch the eye of the Chair and, I hope, to make a serious contribution. I am sure that on one will disagree with this last point. We all want to see the area of Whitehall, Parliament Square, historic Westminster and its surroundings greatly improved. We all know that, whatever the argument about what is said in a certain newspaper, the area is being destroyed for the people who try to live and work here, and, perhaps even more important, for the millions of visitors from abroad who come to the area, the heart of the Commonwealth. It is being destroyed by traffic, both heavy through traffic and local traffic.
There could be more co-ordination of the efforts to deal with the problem. That would not require parliamentary time. It would eventually require money, but only when the right decision had been made. The people concerned must be the GLC and the Westminster City Council. Although successive Governments have believed in local authority freedom to decide local matters, perhaps the time will come for the Government to give more of a lead, because we cannot get rid of the traffic from the area without making adjustments elsewhere, without producing a number or underground routes to take it away from the surface and separate it from the pedestrians.
A number of suggestions have been made. One was a riverside tunnel along the side of the Palace of Westminster. It does not seem to be much in favour now. A tunnel buried in the centre of the river might be a possibility. Perhaps we might have a debate about it before very long. Certainly, we are making a little progress in building the highly controversial underground car park on our very doorstep. This is not a selfish whim of Members of Parliament. It is part of a series of underground car parks and roadways which could remove a great deal of the surface traffic. It would be a valuable contribution to the amenities of the neighbourhood.
Somehow we have also to provide a through route for the traffic which now surges through the Square. Often we are stymied in our considerations by the position of the underground railway. I do not believe that sufficiently serious considera-


tion has been given to the possibility of following the railway route for the vehicles and diverting the railway in perhaps a rather tighter curve.
Possibly we could have the road route on the same site as the railway but at a different level. There are a number of studies which ought to be done to see what can be achieved. Obviously it would be fatal for the nation—I do not say Parliament—to say that Westminster and Whitehall is so historic and splendid that we must push the traffic out of it and make everyone else's life a misery. We have to try to get something to go underground.
That could be carefully and successfully done over a period but at present there is perhaps not enough detailed planning. Here the Government and the local authorities can help us. If necessary, we could have a triumvirate. I do not expect my hon. Friend to say very much about this, but perhaps he can give us a little encouragement. We never get anywhere in this House if we try to do something on our own. We need a certain amount of support, perhaps even across the Floor of the House. Perhaps hon Gentlemen, when they have forgotten about this imaginary incident over which they are so excited, will combine with us in pressing those concerned, through local authorities and the Government, to take seriously this question of traffic, particularly in these historic areas. Who knows, perhaps all of us together may yet in this century achieve what we would all like to do.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: All hon. Members will agree that the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) had a great success in the Adjournment debate last week. I too am sorry that the newspaper which reported this at length did not have the courtesy to say that the subject was raised by the hon. Gentleman. Who knows, but for the fact of the Adjournment debate the announcement may not have been made. The Adjournment is one of the great freedoms of this House, a freedom which I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) for taking up so avidly tonight.
The hon. Member for Bristol, West spoke of buses, with which I will deal

later. Perhaps, seeing those empty buses in the square, it did not occur to him that they might have been empty because they were returning to garages to be taken out of service after being fully loaded in the rush hour, or alternatively, having got gummed up in the square, like the Prime Minister, the passengers had decided that it was quicker to walk. Perhaps the point was not as valid as the hon. Gentleman thought.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I will not interrupt again because I must now catch my train to the West Country. If London Members study the London omnibus, that friendly juggernaut, they will find that all too often, not just in the evening—or for all I know the early morning—but on many occasions during the day, these delightful things are virtually empty. Something must certainly be done to reschedule them.

Mr. Spearing: I will deal with the buses later, perhaps when the hon. Gentleman has left to catch his.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford said that the Prime Minister had suffered this frustration. Perhaps he did not realise when he mentioned the question of time that in the Evening Standard report the matter to which Sir Desmond Plummer or his colleague was referring was that of fines for cars that are towed away. I cannot see why the House should be concerned in terms of time with an increase in these fines.
Many orders are passed by the House "on the nod" and I doubt whether it would be necessary for such orders to be taken on the Floor. The Government could make the orders almost immediately if the matter of fines for tow-away cars was important, as I fancy it is.
I should declare an interest in that I am a co-opted member of the GLC Environmental Planning Committee, whose responsibility it is to see that London traffic flows properly. In 1966 I was co-opted to the Highways and Traffic Committee.
I am glad that the Prime Minister has experienced something which ordinary people experience. He might be a much better Minister of the Crown if that experience were extended to many other frustrations which affect ordinary people.


The Prime Minister lacks knowledge of how ordinary people live; otherwise he would not have said and done many of the things he has said and done in the last few years.
In the next few months the Minister and his right hon. Friends will have to take important decisions on London planning, London traffic, the degree of support that should be given to public transport and road plans. The Greater London Development Plan panel report will be on their desks between now and the New Year and they will have to take many important decisions.
The policy of the Government and the GLC is that if anything can be done as well outside London as in it, a firm wishing to move should be allowed to go. That policy leads to a great deal of difficulty which is not unconnected with traffic congestion. I am glad to say there will be a wide-ranging debate on the future of London on 15th December because I have been fortunate enough to draw a place in the Ballot for Private Members' Motions that day. Representing as I do a London constituency, I shall initiate a debate on London matters, which many hon. Members will welcome.
The Prime Minister does not realise that, by and large, congestion in London is not continuous. For most of the time the traffic flows relatively freely. There is congestion, which may be serious, at certain places at certain times, sometimes predictable, sometimes unpredictable. It is unpredictable because most congestion in London is not caused by traffic. At first hearing that sounds an extraordinary statement, but six or eight months ago the GLC published a technical paper on the congestion of the West London traffic area, which is controlled by a computer in Scotland Yard physically connected to all traffic lights within an area of between three and four miles. The conclusion from that study was that most congestion was caused by incidents such as broken-down lorries, lorries which lose their loads, causing part of the road to be closed, traffic lights which go wrong and emergency repairs to roads, gas mains and water mains. Those are the things which cause traffic build-ups and congestion that floods back.
The GLC has been relatively efficient in its traffic management schemes. Traffic

moves faster, although it may have to go slightly further through one-way streets. But the more efficient is the use of road space, the greater the difficulty when something goes wrong. If something goes wrong, the capacity of the road cannot be made up. Therefore, an incident that occurs at three or four o'clock in the afternoon may have repercussions all through the evening, particularly when the weather is wet and the traffic goes more slowly.
The unfortunate experience of the Prime Minister last night—by no means new to Londoners—may not be able to be avoided, however many computers are installed. It is a rule of life that some lorries and cars will break down and that some traffic lights will go out of order. The more efficient the road system, the more serious the delays become.
This does not disguise the seriousness of the problem outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford. We all tend to forget that the car has to fit into an area which was built hundreds of years ago, or much of it in Edwardian times when people used horse-drawn carriages when they wanted to move about. Too many cars are trying to get into a small area and it will not work. This problem was perhaps burked and not tackled properly by Professor Buchanan in "Traffic in Towns"—a report which I believe was not as good as it was made out to be. It is not just a question of motor cars or traffic in towns but is a question of human movement in towns. If some people are to be privileged by parking policies to be able to use their cars, other people must be able to use other means of transport with equal facility. This has not happened in London because neither the Government nor the GLC are wedded to a policy which would make this possible.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: This is an interesting point. Perhaps I may tell my hon. Friend that I was involved in the problem last night because I was trying to proceed to the House of Commons along Park Lane. The habitual problem in that thoroughfare is that the road serving a whole sequence of hotels is used to set down and pick up visitors and for parking by privileged people. In other words, instead of the road being an artery it is a blocked


and congested passageway which has no direct relevance to the passageway that it should be, with freedom of movement for through traffic. This is a purely administratively matter which I believe could be prevented by the intervention of the Minister.

Mr. Spearing: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), but the problem is not that simple. It is not only a matter of the size of the road, because I am informed that even a large motorway can take only about 3,000 passenger car units per hour—perhaps 4,000 if one is lucky. The problem mentioned by my hon. Friend about parking control has now been brought to the Prime Minister's attention. In London at present we are controlling by parking policies, perhaps with only partial success, the number of vehicles in the centre. This presupposes that parking policies can be enforced. At the moment this policy is not being enforced as well as it might. For that reason we have heard much about parking fines and tow-away fines.
My hon. Friend has not yet grasped the point. Generally speaking, it is only the privileged who are able to ride around in cars in London. The Prime Minister was privileged, as are many hon. Members, in being able to drive out of the gates of the Palace of Westminster from what was our car park into the street. A high proportion of people who drive cars in London are not doing so entirely at their own expense. A recent study carried out by London Transport showed that a high proportion of drivers were driving their cars aided by some form of business expenses. Certainly very few people who travel on buses and other forms of public transport are on expenses most pay for their travel out of taxable income. Therefore, to begin with, anybody who is using a car in London is a privileged person, and this is something which the Prime Minister might like to consider—although he perhaps takes his privilege almost for granted.
The alternative to public transport which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford will work only if the differential cost between public and private transport is favourable to public transport—and it is not favour-

able at present. A man can take his wife and children with him in a private car in London much more cheaply than if lie travels by public transport, particularly by rail, the cost of which is penal. We are encouraging people to travel by car because, once a car has been acquired, travel by it is cheaper.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

Mr. Spearing: That is the problem to which both the GLC and the Government have not yet addressed themselves. Until recently, Sir Desmond Plummer, despite his protestations to the Prime Minister, has tried to run London Transport on a commercial basis, and only in the last few weeks, I believe, has he seen the light. He is performing some sort of somersault, if we are to believe the Press reports. He has waived the £2 million profit which he wanted London Transport to make, and he is relieving it of certain costs. Also—I speak subject to correction—I believe that there is a Press statement to the effect that fares will not go up next year.
I am delighted to hear it. Sir Desmond Plummer takes a bit of time to educate, like the Prime Minister, but he is learning. I hope that the Government will learn from him, for their attitude to the transport problems of London has so far been as illogical as Sir Desmond's We cannot run a healthy city society unless people can move about with relative ease, with relative cheapness, and with regularity and reliability. Certainly, the buses have not got that, whatever the hon. Member for Bristol, West may say, and, in my view, London Transport is grossly at fault in that respect. However, I shall not develop that point now.
We cannot, as I say, run a healthy community unless free and relatively cheap movement is possible. There are ways by which it is possible to fund public transport, particularly the railways, ways which would make it much cheaper to travel by public transport, albeit slightly less conveniently, perhaps, and at a slightly longer travelling time, so that we could have a physical balance between


public and private transport, so that the pressure to use one's vehicle would be less than it is today, and the sort of difficulties of sudden congestion as experienced by the Prime Minister last night would not become more frequent but would remain much the same or, perhaps, even decline in frequency.
To that end, hon. Members opposite will have to change their political philosophy regarding movement in towns and cities. If I am right in my impression, I discern signs that Sir Desmond Plummer in County Hall, with his responsibility for London Transport, is now being a little more realistic about it. If that be so, if he changes his policy before next April—which he will have to do if he has any hope of returning to power—he will also have to change the policy so far exhibited by his friends in the Government.
I am delighted that the Prime Minister has tasted a tiny bit of the frustrations of London life. My constituents have to wait an hour for a bus. They do not know when they will see a bus. This is the sort of frustration which not thousands but hundreds of thousands, or even millions, experience. On the tape tonight, the Prime Minister is quoted as saying that he intervened personally on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of people who experience these terrible delays. He ought to know that many more times the number who experience occasional delays in cars, most of which they are not paying for, experience delay by bus. They are the people for whom the right hon. Gentleman should be concerned.
I hope, therefore, that our Prime Minister's difficulties will have contributed to the conversion not only of Sir Desmond Plummer, who is already half converted, but also of the Government, for without a healthy city life and without healthy transport we cannot have the healthy community life which all hon. Members on both sides want.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: I hesitate to enter the debate at this stage, being a North-Easterner, but I confess to an interest in the matter slightly different from that of my hon. Friends who come from London. I was amazed at the instant reaction, so to call

it, which took place because our Prime Minister experienced some delay.
Because of the accident of timings in this place, we now have a debate on the very disturbing feature of transport in London. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will take note of the fact that probably the main cause of the delay last night was perhaps that a lorry had broken down. Part of the problem that we have in London and throughout the country is that lorries are gradually snarling up our roads and making progress difficult, while British Rail operates with great line capacity available. During the five days in which I am in London each week, I have cause to know that the problems in London are very disturbing. The delights of travelling by car in the North-East should prove a great attraction to anyone who wants to go there.
However, I am disturbed by some of the remarks which have been passed and the headlines in tonight's Evening Standard. I am not calling in aid as being the gospel truth everything that appears in the newspapers. We have all had our moments from them. But two eminent journalists, Robert Carvel in London and Simon Jenkins in Tokyo, get together to produce a headline which says
Snarled-up London—Heath blows his top.
I wish I had been there as I should have liked to see it happen.
The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) said that we must not believe everything that we read in the press. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will see the article which says:
Angered, frustrated, inconvenienced, the Prime Minister demanded that Sir Desmond Plummer should make an explanation and take quick action to improve conditions.
The Prime Minister made his demand at midnight, which is 7 a.m. in Tokyo. He got in touch with Sir Desmond because he could not get by car from the Palace of Westminster to No. 10 Downing St, a distance of all of 400 yards. Poor soul!
I can understand the frustration of the Table when some of us have tried to table Questions asking whether we might have a chiropody service in the House or whether the area can be flooded so that we can have a yacht freeway between


the two places. The Prime Minister's anger was caused because he was prevented from making the great walk from here to there. I do not suggest for one moment that he is too idle to do so. But the fact is that at that time of night—we must also consider that some poor old-age pensioners do not have such money available—the Prime Minister can spend £1 a minute, or somebody else on his behalf can do so, in telephoning Tokyo. I hope that the Under-Secretary will say whether he made the call himself or whether he got somebody else to do so.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: A telephone call was made costing £1 a minute, yet the same Prime Minister, whose uses taxpayers' money for that purpose, refuses to allow those who have complaints against price rises to be allowed the cost of making a telephone call to report those rises. Will the Prime Minister now change his mind about that? Will he let these people have transferred charge calls to London to make their complaints?

Mr. Bagier: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. No doubt he is quite right. It is a question of getting activity. If the personal frustrations of the Prime Minister result in activity, so much the better. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman gets stuck in a queue of unemployed people in my constituency. If he does, he may do something about it. He may activate matters by making a telephone call and doing something about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), probably introduced the frustrations of the Prime Minister in a light-hearted manner. But with all his frustrations and with all the important matters in the world, the Prime Minister can suddenly seize upon a matter like this and get on the telephone to Tokyo. It is a sad reflection on a Prime Minister who has to do that.
Is it true, as reported by those two eminent journalists, that the Prime Minister was so frustrated and inconvenienced that he made this call or initiated a call? It is also true that the reaction of Sir Desmond was to telephone orders to County Hall soon afterwards and give orders that the Metropolitan Police and

the GLC traffic experts should immediately make recommendations for action? If this is the effect of such things on the Prime Minister, the sooner we see him in the unemployment queue in Sunderland, for example, the better, and the sooner we get him in traffic congestion in Birmingham and elsewhere, the better.

10.10 p.m.

The Under Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) moved the House by his great concern for the poor people of London. The House is always moved by his anxieties. He spoke about the housewives with their brimming shopping bags soaking in the rain. He spoke about long lines of his constituents waiting for buses. As always, the House was deeply moved by his eloquence.
I wondered why it was, when his heart was bleeding for the housewives with their soaking shopping baskets, that he did not raise this matter before. I pondered for some time on why it was that on this particular evening he felt he must come to the House and share his distress with the rest of us. Then he gave me that answer. He said he had been forced to bring the matter to our attention because the congestion of London had leaped into the headlines. I would not like to suggest for a moment that he seeks to get into the headlines, I know that he himself would have no wish to do so. He is a shrinking violet. But it happened on this particular evening that his concern and anxiety for the housewives with their sopping shopping baskets rent his heart and he came here to raise the whole matter.

Mr. Wellbeloved: rose—

Mr. Griffiths: I must get on for a little while. The hon. Gentleman based his speech on what he has read in the newspapers.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

Mr. Griffiths: I will give way in a moment. I have had some little experience in journalism myself, and I am bound to say that as I listened to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford I thought that I would prefer him, if I were an editor, to be writing fiction and not news reports. What he had to say—


and I think he knew it himself—was largely fiction and romance, although he put it in a very fetching manner.
In replying to the many points, serious and comical, which have been made, I must start with an expression of regret that so many of our fellow citizens are inconvenienced by traffic delays. We all of us regret this undesirable side effect of an affluent society, where the very motor cars which have given us mobility and a certain measure of liberation, also cause us a great deal of frustration and annoyance. So I start by expressing my regret to those people in London last night and, indeed, on any night that they should suffer inconvenience from traffic delays.
Secondly, I must say at the outset that in indicating his dissatisfaction with the traffic congestion in the centre of London, and in particular in the area of Parliament Square, Whitehall and the West End, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was quite properly expressing the sentiments of millions of people. Certainly he was expressing the views and feelings of all of us here who live and work in this part of London.
The hon. Member said that my right hon. Friend was a London Member. So he is, and a very good one. I think that many Londoners will share his feeling that something needs to be done to improve the traffic situation which Londoners suffer.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the Minister now give way?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: I support the Prime Minister in his action. I only wish that he had acted 12 months or two years ago. The Minister is aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House for years have tried to get his Department, the Home Office and the Government to carry out the present law, which would help relieve the position. Persistently they have refused. Lorries are parked on the pavements outside the front doors of my constituents' homes. I take the matter up with the police, the Home Office and the Department of the Environment. Nothing is done. Millions of pounds in fines are outstanding. Nothing is done about it. A third of the total number of cars on the road should not be there because they

are neither taxed nor insured. Nothing is done about it. If only the Government would put 0·1 per cent. of the effort that they put into, say, industrial relations into doing this part of the job they are paid for, they would solve the problem tomorrow.

Mr. Griffiths: I promised the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) that I would give him an opportunity to intervene if he did not catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, before I did. I think that the hon. Gentleman has done that—

Mr. Lewis: Deal with my point.

Mr. Griffiths: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's point at an appropriate stage in my speech.
I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, together with my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Minister for Transport Industries, will have the backing of the whole House in seeking, together with the Greater London Council, ways and means of resolving or at any rate ameliorating what successive Governments and successive London council's have found a most intractable problem. The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) very properly indicated some of the parameters of this problem and I much appreciated his speech.
However, I must make clear the exact legal responsibility. The Greater London Council is the traffic and the highway authority. My right hon. Friends the Minister for Transport Industries, the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Home Secretary have no powers given them by this House to manage traffic or to build roads in the greater London area. They do not have responsibility for traffic management. It rests with the GLC. But it has not always been that way. There was a time when Ministers of Transport had responsibility for traffic and roads in the London area. However, this was taken away from them in 1969 by the Labour Government. Since then the clear statutory responsibility has lain with the GLC. Therefore, in putting questions to me hon. Gentlemen opposite should remember that it was their own Government which removed from Ministers the ability to control traffic in the London area.
I happen to agree that it was right to do that. It is appropriate that the Greater London Council should control traffic in London. But it comes ill from hon. Gentlemen opposite to seek to place responsibility on my right hon. Friends when it was their own Government which placed that responsibility upon the Greater London Council.
I want now to answer the points made by—

Mr. Wellbeloved: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Deputy Leader of the Greater London Council, Mr. Horace Cutler, made it clear in his Press statement today that he requires more powers? Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that his Government will provide time for those powers to be granted by this House?

Mr. Griffiths: I shall come to that in a moment. I want to turn to last night's incident. I can give a first report of the information available to me about what happened to bring about this heavy congestion in Central London. It is subject to correction because there is still a good deal more information coming in from the police—

Mr. Lewis: Why the police?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member for West Ham, North must listen—

Mr. Lewis: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister must be given a chance to reply.

Mr. Griffiths: I am giving the House the best information available from the traffic authority, the Greater London Council, and the Metropolitan Police. I have the police records before me and if the hon. Member for West Ham, North will do me the kindness of listening I shall tell him what the police have reported.
There were, as there always are when large congestions arise, a number of factors. One was rain. In rain more people use cars, they tend to drive more cautiously and therefore traffic bunches up. Secondly, it was rush hour. Unfortunately, in all rush hours there is a peaking of traffic demand. It was also a Wednesday evening. For a variety of reasons, with which I need not detain the

House, there happens to be more traffic in the West End of London on Wednesday evenings than on most other evenings of the week.
I have here the detailed traffic reports from the Metropolitan Police. The hon. Gentleman who asked what happened might be interested in what they say. There were 12 police units in the general area of Park Lane, Hyde Park Corner, Marble Ach and the West End. The report states:
Heavy weight of traffic and the wet roads caused severe congestion in this area generally, centred on Hyde Park Corner. No specific cause was located, although during this period many parked vehicles were removed at police direction from Park Lane southbound. … Units assisted at junctions until traffic returned to normal. … All minor roads in the West End became congested.
—That is the report from the police units in that area.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

Mr. Griffiths: No, I will not yield again. There are 12 police units reporting from Park Lane, Hyde Park Corner and the Marble Arch areas.
I turn now to those in the Vauxhall Cross area where there were eight police units. The report from those units—I read from the central traffic control report—states:
Heavy weight of traffic and the wet roads caused severe congestion. … The southbound flow along Vauxhall Bridge Road tailed back into the Victoria system, causing congestion there which was not helped by the tailback from the Park Lane situation above. Westbound flow following the line of the River Thames was continuous and stationary for long periods. The majority of vehicles were making for the south and south-west and there was little tailback in the opposite direction. All bridges, therefore, tailed back for each southbound flow. In the case of Westminster Bridge
—this is a crucial point—
this was complicated by another situation causing a northbound tailback".
It arose from a traffic accident the specific accident which has been mentioned by hon. Gentlemen.

Mr. Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman now give way?

Mr. Griffiths: I said to the hon. Gentleman that I would allow him to intervene if it happen that I caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, before he did. I think the House


will agree that I gave him the opportunity of a very long intervention. I hope he will now do me the courtesy of allowing me to answer the debate.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask one question?

Mr. Griffiths: No. I will not give way.
The particular incident concerned an articulated heavy goods vehicle which broke down in Bridge Street at the junction with the Embankment. I am sure the House will recognise that that is a critical point in the West End traffic. It caused considerable congestion. The police report states:
This combined with the congestion stemming from Vauxhall Cross, resulted in the entire area becoming severely congested. Foot duty officers attempted to alleviate the situation at 1740, but by 1800 all traffic stopped. Foot duty officers manned all junctions under the command of Commander 'A' and other units assisted where necessary until traffic returned to normal.
The BBC was informed and was able to tell motorists not to proceed into that area. There can be no doubt that a very large traffic jam, caused by a variety of circumstances, brought much of the traffic, though not all, in the West End to a stop.
I must now try to deal with some of the points which have been put.

Mr. Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Griffiths: I must get on. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was returning from this House to No. 10 to welcome guests at an official reception beginning at 6.30 p.m. He had to return to the House to vote at seven o'clock, and hon. Members will know that that is a very short time. The Prime Minister made no telephone calls himself to the police, to Sir Desmond Plummer or anywhere else. A call was made by a junior official, and these are the reasons why it was done. The Prime Minister has been concerned for a very long time with the conditions of traffic in the West End of London. Having seen these for himself on this occasion he asked of his staff where the responsibility lay. Thereafter his staff quite properly got in touch with the Metropolitan Police and asked for a report. That report was provided and the Prime Minister asked that the GLC should be informed of his concern.
The Prime Minister's staff did as they were bid, and I think the House will recognise that it is a normal courtesy of a senior Minister of the Crown, when he is making inquiries about the functions of a statutory body, to ensure that the head of that statutory body is informed of this concern. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may shout as they wish but the important point is that the Prime Minister thought that the GLC as the traffic authority and the Metropolitan Police should be asked to look into what had happened and how it could be prevented from happening again if possible. He thought it right that Sir Desmond Plummer should know of the inquiries he had made.
It seems to me that the House will accept the Prime Minister's view that we simply cannot have a situation where the centre of the Metropolis is brought with increasing frequency to a standstill in this way. Plainly something has to be done and my right hon. Friend felt it right to make known his concern on behalf of the many thousands of people in London and the South-East who will be far more pleased that my right hon. Friend has expressed his concern on their behalf than they will be impressed by the interjections of the hon. Member for West Ham, North.
I must now deal with some of the more fundamental questions which the debate has thrown up. One of the reasons why there is congestion is that there are more motor cars. Another is that there are more lorries and more buses, particularly those bringing in tourists. There are many more people who are shopping and there is generally more pedestrian congestion in central London.
A number of proposals have been made to relieve this. One is that more should be done to assist public transport. I think the House will be glad to know that the present Government have been able to provide in the London area no less than £66 million to the LTE, plus more than £50 million to British Railways to assist in moving people and goods round the metropolitan area. No other Government have come remotely close to making such efforts and providing money in those terms.
There are no fewer than 30 bus priority lanes at various stages of planning in the GLC area. This Government


have provided new bus grants at the rate of 50 per cent. and a measure of fuel tax remissions as well. Beyond that there has been the Greater London Development Plan which provides for a substantial number of motorways and ringways. These have produced more than 20,000 out of 28,000 objections and I am interested to discover that the Labour Party has said that it would not have any of these ringways in order to reduce the traffic impact on central London. It is the Labour Party's privilege to say what it would not have but the plain fact is that its policy simply is non-existent.
With regard to lorries, we have taken substantial steps to reduce fumes and noise, to provide lorry parks and to provide recommended routes. I am sure that everyone in the House agrees that conges-

tion in our urban areas is a serious matter. I hope we can all agree that it is the duty of this House as a whole and of individual Ministers to seek to take steps to resolve the problem. But it cannot be solved overnight. Successive Governments have not managed to wave a magic wand and move the traffic. What is the fact is that this Government are concerned about congestion. We are doing more about it than any Government before, we have the support of the GLC just as it has ours, and a debate such as this, while it has helped to air the problems, has demonstrated—

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.